NCJ Number
78798
Date Published
Unknown
Length
187 pages
Annotation
Based on an analysis of the extant plea rolls of criminal cases heard in the royal courts in England in the period 1166-1222; English statutes, documents, treatises, and other legal literature from the 12th and 13th centuries; and scholarly works, this thesis attempts to reconstruct the common law of criminal procedure in its earliest stages and to explain how it worked.
Abstract
The primary issue in a criminal prosecution in the period 1166-1222 concerned whether and what kind of proof should be assigned to the defendant. The bona fide suspicion of the community established the prima facie case for an indictment, and its mode of trial was the ordeal by water. However, what constituted a prima facie case and what proofs the defendant might be subjected to depended upon the jurisdiction selected. Many victims sought to bring claims in the royal as opposed to shire or seignorial courts because the royal courts' common law standards for establishing a prima facie case worth testing by battle or the ordeal were less demanding than the procedures of less jurisdictions. It is clear from an examination of the cases that the justices who administered the common law of crime were rational men, who were concerned that the defendant be sent to proof only upon a bona fide, well-substantiated accusation. Numerous cases are discussed, and chapter notes are supplied. (Author abstract modified)