Trial Courts Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Trial courts are legal forums where disputes between litigants, known as cases, are subject to a resolution by judge and jury through the process of a trial. With only a few exceptions, all cases are heard first in a trial court. Trial procedures vary substantially according to the type of legal system—common law, civil law, or religious law—in which the case is heard. In Anglo-American states that follow the common-law tradition, a trial typically involves a review of physical evidence and oral testimony, persuasive statements by the participating attorneys, and final resolution of the dispute by the judge or jury. Thus, the function of a trial court is to allow governmental determination of a legal conflict through the process of a trial. A trial court can be contrasted with an appellate court, which is the higher level court that reviews the findings of the lower tribunal through the process known as an appeal. An appellate court can reverse or alter the decision of the trial court or order additional hearings.

Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Models

There are two general types of trial systems and trial courts found in the world, although there is substantial variation within those classes. The first system is known as the adversarial model, and it is most commonly used in Anglo-American states and former English colonies. The second trial system is the inquisitorial model, and it is most commonly found in continental European countries, as well as in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

The Anglo-American adversarial system of trial procedure can best be described as lawyer-centered, while the European inquisitorial system can be portrayed as judge-centered. In the adversarial system, the attorneys for the parties select the witnesses and conduct the questioning of those witnesses, while the single trial judge acts as a neutral, and usually silent, referee; The jury, in felony criminal cases and some noncriminal matters, ultimately resolves the dispute. The adversarial process presumes that the truth in a disputed matter will be revealed most efficiently through a quasi-competition between the parties, or adversaries. Thus, a trial in the adversarial system can resemble a battle, and indeed, the origins of the common-law jury trial can be traced to the ancient English ordeal by battle.

The European inquisitorial trial system, by contrast, relies upon a judge to control the proceedings, call and question the witnesses, and also make the ultimate determination as to guilt or innocence. As such, the role of the lawyer in the inquisitorial adjudicatory system greatly diminishes, in comparison to the adversarial trial system. The entire process is not confrontational as is the accusatorial system, but instead resembles an investigatory proceeding.

Although the inquisitorial system of trial varies considerably in practice around the world—as does the adversarial system—there are certain general differences between the two models. Most crucially, the role of attorneys significantly lessens in inquisitorial systems and the influence of the judge correspondingly increases. In most inquisitorial trial courts, there are no opening statements by counsel at the beginning of the trial. Rather, the presiding judge outlines the major legal issues and facts of the case. Furthermore, the judge may call certain witnesses if the witnesses have been identified by the parties, whereas, in adversarial trial courts, the witnesses are always decided by the attorneys.

Most importantly, the judge in inquisitorial systems is the primary person who asks questions of the witnesses during the trial, not the attorneys. The attorneys in an inquisitorial trial court do have the right to ask questions of the witnesses after the judge concludes questioning, but this inquiry is usually limited, because witness interrogation at trial is considered primarily the court’s responsibility. Furthermore, there is generally no right to cross-examination of witnesses by counsel in inquisitorial trial systems.

Another major difference between the two systems is that there is usually no jury in inquisitorial trial courts. However, there may be citizen participation in the form of lay judges in some countries. For example, in Germany, two lay judges with “full powers of interrogation, deliberation, voting, and sentencing” accompany the presiding judge at the lower-level court (Reichel 2005, 262).

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Each Model

Scholars have criticized the adversarial trial system on a number of grounds. First, trials under the inquisitorial system are almost always shorter in length than those in adversarial trial courts; this is because the judge in an inquisitorial trial court controls the questioning of witnesses and because there is typically no cross-examination. Also, advocates of the inquisitorial process claim that this system produces far more reliable evidentiary results, that is, that the inquisitorial trial system does a better job at uncovering truth.

The reasons for this are several. The judge—who should be unbiased—controls the primary questioning of witnesses, rather than partisan attorneys and advocates. Furthermore, because the judge or judges determines guilt or innocence in inquisitorial trial courts, the biases and inherent limitations of juries may be avoided. Finally, supporters of the inquisitorial system note that this system’s trial process depends less upon the skill of the attorneys involved in the case. That is, litigants with superior resources who can afford to hire a legal “dream team” would not be advantaged in inquisitorial trial courts, because these procedures are not as lawyer driven. In summary, advocates for the inquisitorial trial process contend that this system is not only more efficient, but also more reliable and superior at providing justice.

However, the inquisitorial trial model has been subject to several critiques from scholars. The first criticism is that the inquisitorial model places too much power in the hands of a single judge, who may be subject to certain biases. Furthermore, proponents of the adversarial trial system maintain that the adversarial process better protects minority interests because of the egalitarian nature of the trial jury, which may serve as a superior limitation upon any bias inherent in the judge or other governmental legal actors. In addition, it is possible that the nature of the adversarial trial system creates incentives for attorneys to serve their clients more aggressively than lawyers in inquisitorial systems, perhaps by working harder to discover evidence or flaws in the opposing counsel’s case.

In conclusion, there has been a greater tendency in recent years for each of the two trial systems to adopt some features usually found in the other model. To be sure, the influence of the Anglo-American adversarial system has likely had a greater influence on inquisitorial courts than the reverse. A number of inquisitorial courts have adopted a limited jury system in certain types of cases, and a tendency for greater questioning of witnesses by counsel has been observed in some inquisitorial trial courts. In the Anglo-American world, a more inquisitorial approach is being used in some courts. One example of this is the quasi-inquisitorial adjudicative process used by the new drug courts in some jurisdictions. Overall, it appears likely that the influence of each of these models will continue to exert a hybridizing effect on trial courts throughout the world as the process of legal globalization continues.

Bibliography:

Diehm, James W. “The Introduction of Jury Trials and Adversarial Elements into the Former Soviet Union and Other Inquisitorial Countries.” Journal of Transnational Law and Policy 11, no. 1 (2001):1–38.
Langbein, John H. Comparative Criminal Procedure: Germany. St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1977.
Lerner, Renee L. “The Intersection of Two Systems: An American on Trial for an American Murder in the French Cour D’Assises.” University of Illinois Law Review (2001): 791–856.
Levy, Leonard W. The Palladium of Justice: Origin of Trial by Jury. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1999.
Pizzi,William T. Trials without Truth. New York: New York University Press, 1999.
Reichel, Philip L. Comparative Criminal Justice Systems. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2005.
Spence, Gerry. With Justice for None: Destroying an American Myth. New York: Times Books, 1989.
Strier, Franklin D. “Major Problems Endemic to the Adversary System and Proposed Reforms.” Western State University Law Review 19 (1992): 463–492.
“Making Jury Trials More Truthful.” U.C. Davis Law Review 30, no. 1 (1996): 95–182.
Terrill, Richard J. World Criminal Justice Systems, 4th ed. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing, 1999.
Weiden, David L. “Comparing Judicial Institutions: Using an Inquisitorial Trial Simulation to Facilitate Student Understanding of International Legal Traditions.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42, no. 4 (2009): 759–763.

This example Trial Courts Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.