Invoking the right to counsel

[Nepenthe]

 

What Enoch said + The U.S., apart from the fusion legal system laboratory that is Louisiana, most certainly isn't a "continental" legal system. Neither is the legal process inquisitorial, district attorneys are not officers of the court.

 

It's funny, a lot of continentals have issues with the ECJ and it's activism, which is a lot more reminiscent of a common law type system.

 

That said, I'm happiest reading Lord Denning at his prime, that's how you write a legal opinion.

 

Quotation please.

 

 

 

 

For which one of those? Even the intro blocks of the appropriate wikipedia articles will set you on your way, we're dealing with the very basics here.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Nepenthe

[Walsingham]

No, I meant from Lord Denning, you arse.

[Nepenthe]

No, I meant from Lord Denning, you arse.

 

Oh, right.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson

 

That's the most famous one, at any rate. Won't share my favourite here, as I might identify myself accidentally.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Nepenthe

[Rostere]

Edit - in short, English law tells you what you can't do. European law tells you what you can.

 

lol

[Enoch]

Neither is the legal process inquisitorial, district attorneys are not officers of the court.

 

Technically, every attorney in the room (private counsel, prosecution, public defender, whatever) is an "officer of the court."  It's part of the oath you take when admitted to practice before a particular court.  But that mostly means you're promising to uphold the honesty and dignity of the process, be nice to the judge, etc.

[Nepenthe]

 

Neither is the legal process inquisitorial, district attorneys are not officers of the court.

 

Technically, every attorney in the room (private counsel, prosecution, public defender, whatever) is an "officer of the court."  It's part of the oath you take when admitted to practice before a particular court.  But that mostly means you're promising to uphold the honesty and dignity of the process, be nice to the judge, etc.

 

 

True dat, but not in the sense of the inquisitorial system. I've sworn the same oath as judges do, but around here it's not a requirement to practice.

[Enoch]

 

 

Neither is the legal process inquisitorial, district attorneys are not officers of the court.

 

Technically, every attorney in the room (private counsel, prosecution, public defender, whatever) is an "officer of the court."  It's part of the oath you take when admitted to practice before a particular court.  But that mostly means you're promising to uphold the honesty and dignity of the process, be nice to the judge, etc.

 

 

True dat, but not in the sense of the inquisitorial system. I've sworn the same oath as judges do, but around here it's not a requirement to practice.

 

 

Honestly, I don't really have the greatest sense of how litigation even works on the continental model.  Probably the best way to answer Monte's accusation regarding the nature of American jurisprudence is this:  in order to get an American law degree and a license to practice in an American state, I've read a reasonable number of opinions by English judges (including the one Nep linked above). 

 

The only time I read the work of continental judges was when I took a class on international trade law.  (Presumably.  We were reading WTO decisions; I'm assuming that at least a few of the authors were European.)   

Edited July 29, 2014 by Enoch

[Nepenthe]

 

 

 

Neither is the legal process inquisitorial, district attorneys are not officers of the court.

 

Technically, every attorney in the room (private counsel, prosecution, public defender, whatever) is an "officer of the court."  It's part of the oath you take when admitted to practice before a particular court.  But that mostly means you're promising to uphold the honesty and dignity of the process, be nice to the judge, etc.

 

 

True dat, but not in the sense of the inquisitorial system. I've sworn the same oath as judges do, but around here it's not a requirement to practice.

 

 

Honestly, I don't really have the greatest sense of how litigation even works on the continental model.  Probably the best way to answer Monte's accusation regarding the nature of American jurisprudence is this:  in order to get an American law degree and a license to practice in an American state, I've read a reasonable number of opinions by English judges (including the one Nep linked above). 

 

The only time I read the work of continental judges was when I took a class on international trade law.  (Presumably.  We were reading WTO decisions; I'm assuming that at least a few of the authors were European.)   

 

 

MMh, for the record, the inquisitorial system (where the court itself is responsible for finding out the facts of the case vs. having the two parties plead their cases to an impartial judge in accordance with the burden of proof), isn't universal even on the "continent", as the nordics at least have an adversarial system (AFAIK, Sweden and Finland for sure).