A Random Stroll Amongst Anthony Trollope's Lawyers

Anthony Trollope (1815–1882) resides in the pantheon of nineteenth century English literature. While working full time in his postal position until 1867, he still managed to publish 47 novels, travel books, biographies, short stories, collections of essays, and articles on various topics. Trollope has been described as the novelist of the ordinary for his realistic description of English society. Law and legal issues flow through Trollope's fiction. The legal system held a special importance to him as the skeleton upholding the social and political framework of the country. Over one hundred lawyers appear in his work and eleven of his novels feature trials or hearings. The law intrigued and exasperated him. Along with the lawyers and legal issues he depicts are ideas of the law and legal system that are part of elaborate philosophical and jurisprudential traditions, which he recognized. This article examines Trollope's changing attitude toward lawyers. It describes the structure of the Bar in terms of class, status and reputation. Trollope believed the legal system should ensure justice, and those who labored in the law should be the vehicle of that pursuit. Justice for Trollope was the meting out of rewards and punishments as the consequence of a right or wrong decision. However, the law, as he depicted it, was often an impediment to this process, and lawyers were unreliable guides. Initially Trollope portrayed lawyers critically as caricatures as evinced by such names as Alwinde, O’Blather, Slow & Bideawhile, Haphazard, and Chaffanbrass. He was outraged that barristers (lawyers who appear in court) put loyalty to their clients ahead of the search for truth and justice. The adversary system was flawed as the enactment of laws in accord with the laws of nature assumes an inbuilt moral compass in humans that contains self-evident truths of right and wrong. Trollope felt there was no reason why a right-minded person could not intuitively recognize the truth, so criminal law's adversary system was unnecessary. The legal system sought not the discovery of the truth but was more interested in aiding the guilty defendant to escape punishment. As he matured as a writer and achieved success, Trollope's understanding and appreciation of the legal profession changed. He met and become friends with leaders of the Bar, and they influenced his descriptions of lawyers, who became realistic and often admirable human beings. Beyond the legal problems of its characters, Trollope's later novels incorporated the social, political, and jurisprudential issues of the times and engaged the Victorian legal culture in a broader sense of history, traditions, continuity and change. Natural law principles were challenged during the Victorian era by positivist notions that law is what the statute books say. These divisions lurk in the background of his later portraits of lawyers and the legal system. In his later period Trollope created a realistic characterization of the legal profession at the time that offered universal insights into human nature.

Adversary System in Common Law Countries and Possibility for Implementation in Indonesian Court

This research tries to open the possibility of implementing an adversary system which is very closely related to the common law system in Indonesia, especially concerning the “The Rights of the Accused” in the criminal justice process. This research is carried out normatively by conducting legal studies through literature and legislation. The result of this research is that if the accused declared himself guilty of the crime he committed, this means that the accused will lose his right to be tried and processed fairly trial in the common law system. If a defendant is declared guilty, then the next process is the conviction without trial, in which case there are weaknesses in the rights of the accused that should have been carried out through a jury trial. Is it possible to apply in Indonesian courts? Is it not contrary to the norms contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP), especially regarding the rights of suspects relating to human rights (HAM), such as equal treatment before the law; put forward the presumption of innocence; the right to compensation; right to legal assistance; the defendant's rights before the court; a free, fast and simple trial; and a court that is open to the public. However, if possible in Indonesia to switch to the adversary system, the judge's role can be limited only as a referee to allow the creation of a fair trial. The party in charge of deciding whether or not the defendant is right is the jury.

6. Examination-in-chief

The questioning of witnesses, which generally falls into three stages known as examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination, is central to the English adversary system of justice. This chapter focuses on the first stage, examination-in-chief. In this stage the party calling a witness, or counsel on his behalf, will seek to elicit evidence that supports his version of the facts in issue. The discussions cover young and vulnerable witnesses; the rule against leading questions and the exceptions to the rule; refreshing the memory in court and out of court; the rule against previous consistent or self-serving statements and the common law exceptions to the rule (complaints in sexual cases, statements admissible to rebut allegations of recent fabrication, statements made on accusation, previous identification, statements admissible as part of the res gestae and statements in documents used to refresh the memory and received in evidence); and unfavourable and hostile witnesses.

Evolution of the adversary (on the example of criminal proceedings)

Adversary in juridical science cannot be considered separately from the judicial system, because the changes that took place in the judicial process had an irreversible impact on the evolution of adversarial proceedings. This provision is proved in legal practice. The evolution of competition in criminal proceedings is investigated in chronological order, in historical retrospect. At the beginning of statehood when democratic principles prevailed in society, trials were based on adversarial principles, the court played the role of an impartial arbitrator, and the outcome of the case was determined by the evidence collected by the plaintiffs and defendants. In the process of strengthening of the state, the court has become an active subject of judicial investigations and by the end of the XVII century the state displaces the adversary system of trial, replacing it to prove the guilt of the accused of the results of the investigation: torture, interrogations, etc. Only in the second half of the XIX century in the proceedings returned adversary, but not for long. During the soviet period previous achievements in the field of justice were eradicated. The restoration of adversarial proceedings in legislation and judicial practice began in the early 1990s in the process of judicial reform, which was carried out in order to improve the efficiency of judicial proceedings. At present it is safe to say that the potential of the adversarial principle has not yet been sufficiently disclosed.

6. Examination-in-chief

The questioning of witnesses, which generally falls into three stages known as examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination, is central to the English adversary system of justice. This chapter focuses on the first stage, examination-in-chief. In this stage the party calling a witness, or counsel on his behalf, will seek to elicit evidence that supports his version of the facts in issue. The discussions cover young and vulnerable witnesses; the rule against leading questions and the exceptions to the rule; refreshing the memory in court and out of court; the rule against previous consistent or self-serving statements and the common law exceptions to the rule (complaints in sexual cases, statements admissible to rebut allegations of recent fabrication, statements made on accusation, previous identification, statements admissible as part of the res gestae and statements in documents used to refresh the memory and received in evidence); and unfavourable and hostile witnesses.