Adversary Procedure

(redirected from Adversarial system)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Wikipedia.

Adversary Procedure

 

(law), a principle of judicial procedure by virtue of which a case is essentially a contest before the court, each party defending its claims and allegations and disputing the claims and allegations of the other.

An expression of socialist democracy in the Soviet administration of justice, adversary procedure is followed in every criminal trial. The court that hears the case does not officially make the accusation. Rather, the accusation is made by an accuser, such as a procurator, civic prosecutor, or victim, who is also a party to the case. The defendant (the accused, under indictment) is the other party, defending himself against the accusation, personally and with the assistance of counsel. The court decides the case. Thus, the basic procedural functions are divided among the court and the parties to the case.

In part because of adversary procedure, criminal cases can be decided justly and fairly, the true facts of the case established, and the rights of all parties protected. Adversary procedure enables the court, in its investigation of the case, to hear, before passing sentence, all evidence pro and contra the accusation and to consider all the circumstances in the case, both aggravating and extenuating.

In a Soviet civil trial, adversary procedure is likewise followed. The entire trial takes the form of a contest between parties—the plaintiff and the defendant, both of whom present their case personally or with the help of counsel. Each party provides the court with evidence and explanations in support of its claims and objections; each has equal procedural rights. The court does not content itself with the materials and explanations presented; rather, it must take all steps provided for in law in order to obtain a comprehensive, full, and objective account of the real circumstances of the case and to make clear the rights and obligations of all parties.

In the law of the bourgeois states, adversary procedure is proclaimed as one of the democratic principles of the judicial process. However, complex court procedures and the de facto inequality of the parties make it difficult for the principle to be realized in practice and, in a trial, confer the advantage on the representatives of the ruling class.

M. S. STROGOVICH

Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
First, the prosecutor is supposed to be a party in an adversarial process, and having one of the parties to an adversarial system become an ultimate decision-maker seems to discredit the system.
These factors include the nature of the adversarial system, defence counsels duty to represent their client vigorously, the phrasing and language of questions, and the delay between complaint and cross-examination.
75) This theme is that a fair adversarial system must be
Insofar as an adversarial process is essential to producing fair outcomes, perhaps the most important detriment of independent juror research is that both sides lose the opportunity to respond to all the information influencing the jury's determination--which twists our adversarial system into something more akin to the European inquisitorial system.
It seems to me that the differences between modern Australian tribunals and courts are to be found in the way governments expect us to do our work: freed of what politicians see as the constraints of the adversarial system, with greater liberty and power to cut to the heart of a matter, of whatever kind.
33) Or Raymond Brescia: "[A]n adversarial system that fails to
71) While the adversarial system is rarely mentioned among the established causes for wrongful convictions, it forms "the context [and] the backdrop" of wrongful conviction cases.
The adversarial system is to be understood as a procedural system "involving active and unhindered parties contesting with each other to put forth a case before an independent decision-maker".
The American legal system is perhaps the most avowedly adversarial system of law in history.
Nonetheless, he does also find that Euro-legalism remains a less adversarial system than its United States counterpart.
He said the judges are working in an adversarial system in which someone asserts one's right and the other denies it, someone contends for one thing and the other pleads against it.