36 now, for the first time, was able to object to the witnesses’ depositions. The accused could deny the witness statements, present an alibi, or justify his deed by referring to self-defense or insanity.*^ Hence judicial torture began to be regulated judicially by the mid 1200s,'^ and by 1300 at the latest it was in use in ecclesiastical, feudal, and royal courts. Slowly but surely, fromthe south of France to the northern parts of the country, fromtowns to the countryside and fromthe royal courts to the seigniorial courts. Roman-canon process was adopted with all its refined technicalities during the course of the fourteenth century. Judicial torture thus spread together with the theory of legal proof. Simultaneously with this development, an appellate system was created. Due to the complexity of the Roman-canonlawof proof and because of the increased number of appeal instances, the number of personnel required to run the judicial apparatus rose sharply beginning in the middle of the thirteenth century. Individual examination of witnesses {enquete) and the development of an appeals system accentuated the need to document court proceedings in writing. This, in turn, presupposed a specialized, not just literate, court personnel, capable of handling great masses of written court documents. Thus, Romanization of procedure and professionalization of court personnel were two sides of the same coin, and the lay element virtually disappeared fromall the French courts, both feudal and royal, by the sixteenth century. The Roman-canon law of proof was, indeed, an “active agent in driving out lay judges in France.”’^ The creation of an appellate order was of vital importance as seen fromthe point of view of controlling the courts.-^ The supervising function inevitably Ibid. pp. 69-70. Langbein 1974 p. 217. However, before judicial torture could be implanted, the judicial duel remained in practice, for it was often difficult to produce the necessary two witnesses. Esmein 1882 p. 93. Dawson 1960 pp. 52—53, 56, 59-60; Langlois - Lanhers 1971 pp. 22—23. The seignorial courts survived until the Revolution of 1789. The system was thus a “mixed” one, sometimes including an Incredible number of appeal instances. In Brittany, the total number of appeal instances in feudal and royal courts was eight, which made the system extremely burdensome. Dawson 1960 pp. 68, 82. The French criminal procedure was surprisinglv differentiated at a very earh' stage. According to Esmein, the separation of the prosecutorial office (procureur du roi) fromthe rest of the judicial apparatus dates hack to the time before 1302 when it was first mentioned in royal legislation. At first the procureitr was allowed to act only w'hen there was no private plaintiff; by the sixteenth century he came to have an exclusive competence to seek punishment in serious criminal affairs. Esmein 1882 p. 101. On the basis on the recorded confessions and judgements of the Parlcment de Pans of the fourteenth century, Langlois and Lanhers conclude that the local royal judicial officers were closely controlled by the Parlement. However, as to its nature, the control corresponded still better to the notion of curia regis than to an actual appeals system that was under development. Langlois - Lanhers 1971 p. 22.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=