Differences between civil law and common law systems

• The majority of civil law jurisdictions follow an inquisitorial system of adjudication, in which judges undertake an active investigation of the claims by examining the evidence and preparing reports.
• In common law systems, the trial judge, the investigators, and the prosecution are separate functions. After an investigation has been completed and charges lodged, the trial judge presides over proceedings grounded in the adversarial system of dispute resolution, where both the prosecution and the defense prepare arguments to be presented before the court. Some civil law systems have adopted adversarial procedures.

Proponents of either system tend to consider that their system defends best the rights of the innocent. There is a tendency in common law countries to believe that civil law / inquisitorial systems do not have the so-called "presumption of innocence", and do not provide the defense with adequate rights. Conversely, there is a tendency in countries with an inquisitorial system to believe that accusatorial proceedings unduly favor rich defendants who can afford large legal teams, and are very harsh on poorer defendants.

Basic rights

Currently, in all countries with a democratic system and the rule of law, criminal procedure puts the burden of proof on the prosecution – that is, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty, as opposed to having the defendant prove that he is innocent; any doubt is resolved in favor of the defendant. This provision, known as the presumption of innocence, may in practice operate somewhat differently in different countries. In the 46 countries which are members of the Council of Europe, this is required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Similarly, all such jurisdictions allow the defendant the right of a counsel and provide defendants that cannot afford to have their own lawyer some lawyer at the public expense (which is in some countries called a "court-appointed lawyer"). Again, the efficiency of this system depends greatly on the jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, the lawyers provided to indigent defendants are often overworked or incompetent, or may not take much interest in the cases they have to defend.

United States

In the United States, there is a distinction between constitutional criminal procedure, which consists of baseline protections that the United States Constitution requires be afforded to those accused of crimes, and statutory criminal procedure, which consists of enacted rules that govern the actual conduct of a trial (such as the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in federal court and similar rules in state courts). Rules of statutory criminal procedure (which are regularly revised) may afford defendants more protection than constitutional criminal procedure, but may not afford less.

In a criminal case, the government generally brings charges in one of two ways: either by accusing a suspect directly in a "bill of information" or other similar document, or by bringing evidence before a grand jury to allow that body to determine whether the case should proceed. If there is, then the defendant is indicted. In the federal system, a case must be brought before a grand jury for indictment if it is to proceed; some states, however, do not require indictment. Once charges have been brought, the case is then brought before a petit jury, or is tried by a judge if the defense requests it. The jury is selected from a pool by the prosecution and defense.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal trial, which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The prosecution presents its case first, and may call witnesses and present other evidence against the defendant. After the prosecution rests, the defense may move to dismiss the case if there is insufficient evidence, or present its case and call witnesses. All witnesses may be cross-examined by the opposing side. Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the defendant is not required to testify, but must answer the prosecution's questions if he or she does testify. After both sides have presented their cases and made closing arguments, the judge gives the jury legal instructions; the jury then adjourns to deliberate in private. The jury must unanimously agree on a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

If a defendant is found guilty, sentencing follows, often at a separate hearing after the prosecution, defense, and court have developed information based on which the judge will craft a sentence. In capital cases, a separate "penalty phase" occurs, in which the jury determines whether to recommend that the death penalty should be imposed. As with the determination of guilt phase, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case, and the defendant is entitled to take the stand in his or her own defense, and may call witnesses and present evidence.

After sentencing, the defendant may appeal the ruling to a higher court. American appellate courts do not retry the case; they only examine the record of the proceedings in the lower court to determine if errors were made that require a new trial, resentencing, or a complete discharge of the defendant, as is mandated by the circumstances. The prosecution may not appeal after an acquittal, although it may appeal under limited circumstances before verdict is rendered, and may also appeal from the sentence itself. Increasingly, there is also a recognition that collateral consequences of criminal charges may result from the sentence that are not explicitly part of the sentence itself.

Civil procedure

Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a "civil action", as opposed to a criminal action). These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, what kind of service of process is required, the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases, the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks must function.

The United States federal court system adopted standardized Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on September 16, 1938, before which time there were varying rules that governed different types of civil cases such as cases at law or in equity or in admiralty. (These differences grew from the history of "law" and "equity" as separate court systems in English law.) There are exceptions to the types of cases that the Federal Rules now control but they are few in number and somewhat esoteric (e.g., "prize proceedings in admiralty"). Most states have also adopted the Federal Rules (with various minor modifications) to govern procedures in their state court systems.

California is the odd exception in that its homegrown civil procedure system is enshrined in statutory law (the Code of Civil Procedure), not in rules promulgated by the state supreme court or the state bar association.

The civil courts of England and Wales adopted an overwhelmingly unified body of rules as a result of the Woolf Reforms on 26 April 1999. These are collectively known as the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and in all but some very confined areas replaced the older Rules of the Supreme Court (applicable to the High Court of Justice) and the County Court Rules.

In Canada the rules of civil procedure are administered by the provinces and thus each province has its own set of rules. Most provinces base their civil procedure rules on the mixture of English and American rules adapted to the needs of the province.

Alternative dispute resolution proceedings and administrative law proceedings both tend to have relatively simple rules of procedure, in comparison to the highly formalized procedures seen in the federal and state courts.

Jurisdiction

In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.

As a topic, jurisdiction draws its substance from Public International Law, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.