Editing Inquisitorial system (section)

==Overview==

{{Off topic|date=December 2024|2=Odd Overview Section}}

In an inquisitorial system, the trial judges (mostly plural in serious crimes) are inquisitors who actively participate in fact-finding public inquiry by questioning defense lawyers, prosecutors, and witnesses. They could even order certain pieces of evidence to be examined if they find presentation by the defense or prosecution to be inadequate. Prior to the case getting to trial, magistrate judges (''[[Examining magistrate|juges d'instruction]]'' in France) participate in the investigation of a case, often assessing material by police and consulting with the prosecutor. 

The inquisitorial system applies to questions of [[criminal procedure]] at trial, not [[substantive law]]; that is, it determines how criminal inquiries and trials are conducted, not the kind of crimes for which one can be prosecuted or the sentences that they carry. It is most readily used in some [[civil law (legal system)|civil legal systems]]. However, some jurists do not recognize this dichotomy, and see procedure and substantive legal relationships as being interconnected and part of a theory of [[justice]] as applied differently in various legal cultures.

In an [[adversarial system]], judges focus on the issues of [[law]] and [[procedural law|procedure]] and act as a referee in the contest between the [[defendant|defense]] and the [[Prosecutor|prosecution]]. [[Jury|Juries]] decide matters of fact, and [[Jury nullification|sometimes matters of the law]]. Neither [[judge]] nor jury can initiate an inquiry, and judges rarely ask [[witness]]es questions directly during [[trial]]. In some United States jurisdictions, it is common practice for jurors to submit questions to the court that they believe were not resolved in [[direct examination|direct]] or [[cross-examination]]. After [[testimony]] and other [[evidence (law)|evidence]] are presented and summarized in arguments, the jury will declare a [[verdict]] (literally ''true statement'') and in some jurisdictions the reasoning behind the verdict; however, discussions among jurors cannot be made public except in extraordinary circumstances.  

Appeals on the basis of factual issues, such as sufficiency of the sum total of evidence that was properly admitted, are subject to a [[standard of review]] that is in most jurisdictions deferential to the judgment of the fact-finder at trial, be that a judge or a jury. The failure of a prosecutor to disclose evidence to the defense, for example, or a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights ([[right to counsel|legal representation]], [[right to silence|right to remain silent]], [[right to a fair trial|an open and public trial]]) can trigger a dismissal or [[new trial|re-trial]]. In some adversarial jurisdictions (e.g., the [[United States]], and England and Wales), a prosecutor cannot appeal a [[acquittal|"not guilty" verdict]] (absent corruption or gross [[malfeasance]] by the court).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1420701.html|title=FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions.|website=Findlaw}}</ref>

In adversarial systems, the defendant may plead "[[guilt (law)|guilty]]" or "[[nolo contendere|no contest]]," in exchange for reduced sentences, a practice known as [[plea bargain]]ing, or a plea deal, which is an extremely common practice in the United States. In theory, the defendant must allocute or "voice" his or her crimes in open court, and the judge must believe the defendant is telling the truth about his or her guilt. In an inquisitorial system, a [[confession (law)|confession]] of guilt would not be regarded as ground for a guilty verdict. The prosecutor is required to provide evidence supporting a guilty verdict. But this requirement is not unique to inquisitorial systems, as many or most adversarial systems impose a similar requirement under the name ''[[corpus delicti]]''.