Distinguish the adversarial from the inquisitorial system of procedure.

The two procedural traditions — the trial's grammar (criminal procedure's classic comparison):PointAdversarial system (common law'stradition)Inquisitorial system (civil law's tradition)PhilosophyTruth emerges from the parties' contest — the neutral umpireTruth discovered by the state's inquiry — the active officialRole of the judgePassive umpire: rules on admissibility, moderates, never investigatesActive inquisitor: directs the file, questions witnesses, commands expertiseParties' roleThe adversaries drive: their evidence, their narrative, their tacticsThe parties supply information to the official inquiry; the file (dossier) is the caseProsecutionParty (an adversary) — adversarial equality with the defenceOrgan of the state (the magistrature's two ladders — judging and prosecuting bench)The pre-trialPolice-prosecution investigation; the defence's access limited; plea- bargaining's centrality (USA)The juge d'instruction (France) / investigating judge tradition: judicial supervision of investigation; the dossier's defence accessEvidenceOrality's primacy — live testimony, cross-examination (the "greatest legal engine" — Wigmore), the jury's shadow (even post-jury)The written file's primacy — the dossier compiled beforehand; trial largely verifying the file; free evaluation of evidence (intimeconviction / freie Beweiswürdigung)Lay participationThe jury (criminal) — the community's verdictThe lay judges (Schöffen, the mixed panels) — the professional-lay benchMode of thinkingInductive: from testimonies' clash to storyDeductive: from the file's facts to the code's applicationStrengthsParty-empowerment; procedural equality's drama; transparency of testingEfficiency; thoroughness (no surprise evidence); the innocent's investigative protection (the neutral inquisitor)WeaknessesThe contest's distortions (the wealthy litigant's advantage; plea-bargain's coercion risks; surprises)The judge-prosecutor's proximity…