37 led to similar modes of procedure in both appellate courts and courts of first instance. A complete review by the appellate court would have been virtually impossible without the use of written documents.2* A hierarchical court system, learned legal professionals and a theory of proof aimed at material truth and based on controllable rules are intertwined. In order to effectively supervise local administration of justice, a hierarchical court systemseems necessary. Such a systementails the possibility to change a lower court’s decision materially, if the revisions are not to be based solely on mercy or whim. This, in turn, presupposes some system of proof other than the one dependent on ordeals, and a learned lawof proof requires legal professionals to master it. As it stood at the beginning of the sixteenth century, French criminal process was transformed into a full-blown inquisitorial procedure, with a strong officiality principle at work. The French criminal procedure had born a strong Roman-canon influence ever since the inquisitorial mode of procedure had started to gain ground in the thirteenth century. Thereafter, however, the French process — in the form of rnos galliens — partly followed its own path.-- On the threshold of the early Modern Age, the French monarchy intervened in criminal procedure - until then regulated by customary law and juristic writing only - through two important ordinances, the Ordinance of Blois of 1498 and that of Villers-Cotterets of 1539 which both followed the basic outline of the secret, inquisitory procedure with recourse to judicial torture.-^ Villers-Cotterets was a rough equivalent to the German Carolina of 1532 (see Chapter 3).-'^ There were, however, great differences between the two laws. Whereas Carolina sought to regulate the criminal procedure in a comprehensive manner fromstart to finish, the French lawgiver took much more for granted. Langbein attributes this difference to the differing levels of legal education. Carolina was meant to be understood by lay judges and given in a Germany where the legal profession was only beginning to blossom, whereas Villers-Cotterets was to be used by legal professionals trained quite well in Roman-canon law. Thus, there was no need for the draftsman to initiate the judges in the basics of Roman-canon law. Instead, he could concentrate on the points in need of reform. L.inghcin 1974 p. 214; see .also Dawson 1960 pp. 57-58, who describes the the procedure of the Parlernent de Paris around the middle of the fourteenth century. The Parlement did not contend with just reviewing the documents produced by the lower courts but, instead, even sent commissioners to the locality to re-examine witnesses. Moreover, both parties were asked to summarize their claims and their witness evidence. These summaries and theproces-verbaux produced bv the commisscHrs-cnquctcurs had to be in writing. -- Langbein 1974 p. 221. -•’ Carbasse 1990 pp. 146—147. For a detailed description of the procedure according to the Ordinance of Villers-Cottcrcts, sec Esmein 1882 pp. 138-154. Langbein 1974 pp. 223-224.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=