NCJ Number
99797
Date Published
1984
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This essay counters arguments that the adversarial system inhibits factfinding and efficiency and argues for the use of adversarial defense counsel as essential to ensuring the protection of the rights of the accused.
Abstract
Critics of the truth-finding capability of the adversarial system fail to appreciate that evidence favorable to the accused is most likely to be developed by an attorney totally committed to their client's best interests. Further, there is no evidence that an alternative system is more proficient at factfinding. The adversarial system also is essential for supporting the due process model of criminal justice. The state tends to gravitate toward a crime control model of criminal justice, which is primarily interested in obtaining convictions and punishing criminals. Although the state may profess interest in protecting innocent persons from injustice, its use of resources is weighted toward obtaining convictions as quickly as possible. The defense counsel stands as the primary challenge to abuse of the accused's rights. The defense counsel also prevents the current emphasis on processing efficiency from violating a client's rights. A primary tool of processing efficiency, plea negotiations, can be usefully used by defense counsel in their clients' interests, but defense counsel must ensure that plea negotiations do not coerce accused persons to plead guilty when they are innocent. 10 references and a 37-item bibliography.