Abstract
The most typical division of evidence in the Polish criminal procedure is the one into direct proof and indirect proof. Romans did not come up with scientific theory on the evidence and even with theory of the criminal proceedings as well. However, in spite of the absence of proper constructions of circumstantial evidence in Roman criminal law, this is out of question that Roman law allowed to present adminicles in both the quaestio perpetua trial and in the cognitio extra ordinem proceedings. The Roman accusators and advocates used with predilection the circumstantial evidence in the lawsuits to convince the judges. The examination of the most important legal sources: D. 48,19,5 pr. (constitutions of Emperor Trajan) and C. 9,47,16 (constitution of Emperor Constantine the Great) undoubtedly shows that circumstantial legal prosecution was in Roman world fully allowed. Quintilianus distinguished between direct proofs and indirect proofs. He called them probationes inartificiales and probationes artificiales (signa, argumenta, exempla). The most similar to present adminicles were signa.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego. Seria Prawnicza. Prawo
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
