Gripla - 20.12.2016, Síða 303

303
don’t hear of this, they will probably make a fatal error, by pleading
the case in the East Quarter Court instead of the north Quarter
Court. this is a possibility they will overlook, and a fifth Court
charge can be lodged against them for pleading in the wrong
court.”
Lest this jurisdictional maneuver seem quaint, consider the second scene,
this one from the american tV series Law & Order. A young Russian-
born man has been arrested for a mob-related crime in Brooklyn, part of
new York City. What the prosecutor really wants, though, is the name of
the mob boss, so to that end, he offers the young mobster a deal: if he’ll
reveal the boss’s name, the prosecutor will give him “full immunity in new
York County to anything he testifies to.” the young guy’s defense lawyer,
also russian-born, repeats the offer: “full immunity to anything my cli-
ent testifies to in new York County.” they strike a bargain, whereupon
the prosecutor places the young man under arrest. His astonished lawyer
protests: “there’s a deal in place! no prosecution in new York City!” to
which the prosecutor replies, “In new York County. that’s Manhattan.
I never gave you immunity in Brooklyn. that’s King’s County.” and then,
turning to the young man, “next time, get yourself a better lawyer, son.”
(Yes, things like that really do happen in the anglo-american trial; in fact,
this episode is based on a real-life case.)
these two scenes serve to remind us that the early Icelandic tri-
al and the anglo-american trial are “runnin af sama rót,” as Þorleifur
Guðmundsson repp observed in the 1830s. that is, they are descended
from the primitive adversary process that obtained throughout western
Europe before the rise of Christian monarchies, which, once they got
established, adopted roman-canonical procedure – except for England,
which alone in Europe stuck to the basics of the adversarial structure,
which it eventually planted in all its colonies, including mine. thus the
two great procedural systems of the Western world, which I’ll call roman
and Anglo for short.
Some legal historians find the distinction exaggerated, especially insofar
as the two systems have grown more alike, especially in the last century.
other perhaps more culturally-inclined scholars continue to find the dis-
tinction compelling. I’m with them.
SAME FRAME