On the accused’s right to a defence counsel in the Roman criminal procedure
Andrzej Chmiel
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin , Polandhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8577-1183
Abstract
This article is dedicated to the issue of the defendant's right to appoint a defense attorney in a Roman criminal trial. The purpose of this publication was to show how the ancient Romans understood the most important procedural right of the accused, i.e. the right to appoint a defense attorney, and especially to answer such detailed questions as when such a right was granted to him, i.e. at what stage of the criminal process he could use it. Furthermore, did we also deal with compulsory defense in the Roman criminal proces. Finally, the purpose of this study will also be to show what changes have occurred in the discussed issue in the historical development of the Roman criminal process (between the ordinary and extraordinary process), and what were the reasons for these changes. The studies presented in this paper were conducted using the historical-legal method, but the dogmatic-legal method was used in parallel. As shown in the proceedings before the quaestiones perpetuae, the praetor was obligated to appoint a defender for the accused if the latter could not find one himself and requested it, but only when the reus became a party to the process, i.e. when the so-called inscriptio inter reos took place. The defendant's right to appoint a defense attorney, as shown, became a universal procedural guarantee in the criminal cognition procedure, and during the period of the Dominate, it was transformed into universal compulsory defense. Furthermore, as shown, the reasons for these changes were dictated by the fact that in the criminal cognition procedure, the jurisdictional body deciding the case was finally equipped with the right of evidence initiative, and the fact that the defendant's right to appoint a defense attorney was transformed into a universal "legal" obligation during the post-classical period, as proven, should be treated as a manifestation of the phenomenon of unifying the rules and principles of the criminal cognition procedure during the post-classical period, but also as a manifestation of strengthening the procedural guarantees of the defendant.
Keywords:
accused, right of defence,, right to a defence counsel, Roman criminal procedure, compulsory legal representation, patronus, quaestiones perpetuae, cognitio extra ordinemReferences
Bablitz L., Actors and Audience in the Roman Courtroom, London–New York 2007. (Crossref)
Bablitz L., The Selection of Advocates for Repetundae Trials. The Cases of Pliny the Younger, Athenaeum 2009, vol. 97.
Banfi A., Acerrima indagio. Considerazioni sul procedimento criminale Romano nel IV sec. D.C., 2nd ed. Torino 2016.
Chmiel A., Defence Right of the Accused and the Evidence from Slave’s Testimony in the Roman
Criminal Procedure, Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 2021, vol. 30, no. 5.
Chmiel A., Reus vel suspectus? On the Status of the Accused and the Suspect in the Roman
Criminal Procedure, Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 2021, vol. 30, no. 2.
Chmiel A., Zasada kontradyktoryjności w rzymskim procesie karnym, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego. Seria Prawnicza. Prawo 2018, vol. 22. (Crossref)
Chmiel A., Zeznania świadków i ich wartość dowodowa w rzymskim procesie karnym, Lublin 2013 [non-published].
Crook J.A., The Legal Advocacy in the Roman World, London 1995.
Greenidge A.H.J., The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time, New York 1901.
Hofmański P., Kuczyńska H., Międzynarodowe prawo karne, Warszawa 2020.
Humfress C., Orthodoxy and the Courts in the Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007. (Crossref)
Kołodko P., Ustawodawstwo rzymskie w sprawach karnych. Od Ustawy XII Tablic do dyktatury Sulli, Białystok 2012.
Kubiak P., Kilka uwag na temat znajomości prawa u mówców sądowych republikańskiego Rzymu, Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa 2015, vol. 8, no. 1.
Kunkel W., Quaestio, in: Kleine Schriften. Zum römischen Strafverfahren und zur römischen Verfassungsgeschichte, Weimar 1974.
Lintott A., Crawford M.H., Mattingly H.B., Lex repetundarum, in: Roman Statutes, ed. M.H. Crawford, vol. 1, London 1996.
Litewski W., Rzymski proces cywilny, Warszawa–Kraków 1988.
Litewski W., Rzymski proces karny, Kraków 2003.
Litewski W., Słownik encyklopedyczny prawa rzymskiego, Kraków 1998.
Mossakowski W., Accusator w rzymskich procesach de repetundis w okresie republiki, Toruń 1994.
Mossakowski W., „Laudatores” w procesie rzymskim, Zeszyty Prawnicze UKSW 2001, no. 1. (Crossref)
Neuhauser W., Patronus und Orator, Innsbruck 1958.
Pugliese G., Le garanzie dell’imputato nella storia del processo penale romano, Temi Romana 1969, vol. 18.
Sowiński P., Uprawnienia składające się na prawo oskarżonego do obrony. Uwagi na tle czynności oskarżonego oraz organów procesowych, Rzeszów 2012.
Vincenti U., Duo genera sunt testium. Contributo allo studio della prova testimoniale nel processo romano, Padova 1989.
Waltoś S., Hofmański P., Proces karny. Zarys systemu, Warszawa 2018.
Wiliński P., Zasada prawa do obrony, Warszawa 2006.
Zumpt A.W., Der Criminalprocess der römischen Republik, Leipzig 1871.
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8577-1183
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Author declares that the Work is original and does not infringe any personal or proprietary rights of third parties, and that She/He has unlimited rights to the Work which are the subject of the Agreement signed with the Publisher.
Author of the publication transfers to the Publisher the economic copyrights to the Work (article) submitted for publication, free of charge, without time and territorial restrictions in the following fields of use:
a) production, recording and reproduction of the copies of the Work by a specific technique, including printing, magnetic recording and digital technology;
b) marketing, lending or rental of the original or copies of the Work, and distribution in the form of open access, in accordance with the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (also known as CC BY), available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.pl;
c) inclusing the Work in the composition of the collective work;
d) publishing on the website of the journal, public performance, exhibition, display, reproduction, broadcasting and rebroadcasting, and making the Work available to the public in such a way that everyone can have access to them in a place and at a time chosen by them;
e) uploading the Work in an electronic form to electronic platforms or other uploading of the Work in an electronic form to the Internet or other network.
The proprietary copyright to the Work is transferred to the Publisher free of charge upon signing the contract wit the Publisher.
