U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

COMMENT ON CONTINENTAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

NCJ Number
50654
Journal
Yale Law Journal Volume: 87 Issue: 8 Dated: (JULY 1978) Pages: 1570-1576
Author(s)
A S GOLDSTEIN; M MARCUS
Date Published
1978
Length
8 pages
Annotation
CRIMINAL PROCEDURES IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND ITALY ARE EXAMINED IN THIS COMMENTARY ON THE CONTINENTAL CRIMINAL PROCESS.
Abstract
GOLDSTEIN AND MARCUS PUBLISHED A STUDY OF THE CONTINENTAL CRIMINAL PROCESS IN 1977. THEY NOTED CONCERN IN THE UNITED STATES ABOUT OVERLY BROAD PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, A GROWING MISTRUST OF PLEA BARGAINING, AND CONTINUING DOUBT OVER THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXCLUSIONARY RULES. INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED IN THE COURSE OF THE STUDY WITH PROSECUTORS, JUDGES, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, AND SCHOLARS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND ITALY. FROM THESE INTERVIEWS, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT JUDGES IN INQUISITORIAL SYSTEMS DO NOT CONTROL OR SUPERVISE THE INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, OR TRIAL OF MOST CRIMINAL CASES MUCH MORE CLOSELY THAN JUDGES IN THE U.S. ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM. INVESTIGATION WAS GENERALLY LEFT TO POLICE AND, DESPITE STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS TO THE CONTRARY, CHARGING DISCRETION WAS EXERCISED FREQUENTLY AND WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT SUPERVISION BY POLICE AND PROSECUTORS. ALTHOUGH PLEA BARGAINING AS SUCH DID NOT OCCUR, ANALOGOUS PROCESSES BY WHICH PROSECUTORS AND DEFENDANTS MADE SIMILAR ACCOMMODATIONS THROUGH 'TACIT UNDERSTANDINGS OR PATTERNS OF RECIPROCAL EXPECTATION' WERE FOUND. THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY SUGGEST THE NEED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT LIMITATIONS EXPERIENCED BY JUDGES AND OTHER OFFICIALS AND INDICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSESSING THE RISK THAT JUDICIAL CONTROL MAY POSE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY OF EUROPEAN PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES IS EXAMINED BY THE ORIGINATORS OF THE STUDY AND IN RESPONSE TO CRITICISMS OF THE STUDY BY LANGBEIN AND WEINREB. (DEP)