Many Continental European systems use the "civil law" method. Under that system, all the lawyers in the case are responsible to help in the "search for the truth." If one lawyer has information that would help the other side or comes to agree with the other side's view, he or she has the right and/or duty to say so. Which system do you think is more effective and why? Also, do you see any constitutional problems with applying the civil law system to the U.S.?

For this assignment, in addition to answering the above questions, I would like you to find at least one case (which can be done most easily from Lexis) in which the limits of the adversary system were discussed or tested. The subject matter of the case itself can be anything, but the focus should be whether an attorney or firm's responsibility to a client or court outweighs some other "greater" or "moral" responsibility. For this case, please briefly discuss the ethical issue and how the court resolved it.

I think that the civil law method is better than the adversary system. The reason I prefer the civil law method is because with the civil law method they try to find the truth and let the innocent go if all the evidence shows that a defendant is innocent. In the adversary system for example if a lawyer has incrimiatin evidence on his client he does not have to disclose it. He can still fight for his client and prove his clients innocence even if he knows his client is not innocent. In an article I read called comparisons with the inquisitorial approach it had some points I agreed with here is a little bit of the article: "In many jurisdictions the approaches of each system are often formal differences in the way cases are reviewed. It is questionable that there results would be different if cases were conducted under the differing approaches; infact no statistics exist that can show that these systems do not come to the same result.
However, these approaches are often a matter of national pride and there are opinions amongst jurists about the merits of the differing approaches and their drawbacks as well.
Proponents of the adversarial system often argue that the system is more fair and less prone to abuse than the inquisitional approach, because it allows less room for the state to be biased against the defendant. It also allows most private litigants to settle their disputes in an amicable manner through discovery and pre-trial settlements in which non-contested facts are agreed upon and not dealt with during the trial process.

In addition, adversarial procedure defenders argue that the inquisitorial court systems are overly institutionalized and removed from the average citizen. The common law trial lawyer has ample opportunity to uncover the truth in a laboratory called the courtroom. Most cases that go to trial are carefully prepared through a discovery process that aids in the review of evidence and testimony before it is presented to judge or jury. The lawyers involved have a very good idea of the scope of agreement and disagreement of the issues to present at trial which develops much in the same way as the role of investigative judges. It has also been argued that a trial by a jury of one's peers may be more impartial than any government paid inquisitor and a panel of his peers. In the United States the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers who are common citizens is guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Proponents of inquisitorial justice dispute these points. They point out that most cases inadversarial systems are actually resolved by plea bargain and settlement. Plea bargain as a system does not exist in inquisitorial system. Most legal cases in the systems do not go to trial; this can lead to great injustice when the defendant has an unskilled or overworked attorney, which is likely to be the case when the defendant is poor. In addition, proponents of inquisitorial systems argue that the plea bargain system causes the participants within the system to act in perverse ways, in that it encourages prosecutors to bring charges far in excess of what is warranted and defendants to plead guilty even when they believe that they are not. Furthermore, proponents of inquisitorial systems also argue that the power of the judge is limited by the use of lay assessors and that a panel of judges may not necessarily be more biased than a jury.

The adversarial system has also been attacked for failing to accurately resolve complex technical issue such as science, technology, or tax or accounting regulation. In the adversarial system, juries encounter such complex technical cases for the first time. This would lead to unjust outcomes for one or both of the litigating parties due to the lack of understanding of the evidence presented. In the inquisitorial system, the judge, though not an expert in each technical subject, would have gone through similar tax, forensic, or accounting related issues countless times, and are thus unlikely to be confused or manipulated.

Disadvantages of using a Jury on criminal matters include:

Expensive to operate and extends the time taken to hear cases
Jury service imposes an unfair economic and mental burden on those chosen to serve
Competence of non-professions is questionable as they are considered ‘amateurs’ in the face of the law
Jurors can be unduly influenced by media coverage of their case
Easily persuaded by good counsel
Do not give reasons for their decisions (process is secret–no debate)
Jurors have difficulty in assessing damages and analyzing complex evidence."
I do see that if the U.S. did apply the civil law it would be a constitutional problem. According to the 6th amendmant In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. With civil law there is no jury trial and you are specifically in the hands of the judge or judges trying to find out if you are innocent or not. In Lexis I found a case called Batson vs Kentucky. This case is about Petitioner, Batson, he was indicted in Kentucky on charges of burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During trial of the matter, the judge conducted voir dire and excused certain jurors for cause. When it came time for peremptory challenges, the prosecutor used his to remove all of the black persons left on the venire, which left Batson, a black man, to be tried by an all-white jury.. Defense counsel objected before the jury was sworn in, and the judge overruled the objection on the grounds that peremptory challenges could be against “anybody they want.” Petitioner was convicted on both counts. This case is showing the adversary system being tested by allowing the defendant to have a jury but not of his own peers. He decided he would take it upon himself to dismiss jurors and replace them with who he wanted.