The adversary system in Anglo-American law, also known as "party-led \ party-stated \ party-sued", means that the initiation, continuation and development of litigation mainly depend on the parties: the litigation process is dominated by the parties, and the judge is only in a passive and neutral referee position; The parties shall be responsible for the investigation, preparation, presentation and statement of evidence value, and the judge shall not take the initiative to collect evidence beyond the scope of evidence specified by the parties. Under the adversary system, litigation is actually a competitive sport. F6 requires that if the defendant's request is rejected, the defendant must submit defense materials, and then both parties should be prepared to enter the pretrial procedure and discovery procedure. If both parties fail to reach a settlement in the pre-trial procedure, they will enter the trial stage. According to the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the parties in civil litigation have the right to ask for a jury trial, so both parties can ask for a jury trial and have the right to choose jurors. After the trial begins, it is usually necessary to distinguish between the plaintiff's case and the defendant's case. The case of the original defendant refers to all the facts that the original defendant has to prove and all the problems that the original defendant has to explain. The plaintiff's case should be conducted first, which means that the plaintiff's lawyer should explain the facts of the case and the plaintiff's requirements to the jurors first. %B made a request. If the defendant's requests are rejected, the defendant must submit defense materials, and then both parties should be prepared to enter the pretrial procedure and discovery procedure. If both parties fail to reach a settlement in the pre-trial procedure, they will enter the trial stage. According to the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the parties in civil litigation have the right to ask for a jury trial, so both parties can ask for a jury trial and have the right to choose jurors. After the trial begins, it is usually necessary to distinguish between the plaintiff's case and the defendant's case. The case of the original defendant refers to all the facts that the original defendant has to prove and all the problems that the original defendant has to explain. The plaintiff's case should be conducted first, which means that the plaintiff's lawyer should explain the facts of the case and the plaintiff's request to the jurors first, and submit relevant documents and other evidence. The plaintiff's lawyer may request to call witnesses. After the witness appears in court, the plaintiff's lawyer asks questions first, and then the defendant's lawyer has the right to ask questions to the witness. This is the so-called cross-examination system. When all the evidence of the plaintiff has been presented and expounded, the defendant's case will begin to be tried. The defendant may first request to dismiss the plaintiff's claim. If the plaintiff's claim is not rejected, or the defendant's claim is rejected, the defendant will begin to present all his evidence or make all statements. The defendant may also request to call witnesses and then cross-examine. After the evidence of both parties is submitted, the lawyers of both parties shall make a summary statement on the case. First, the plaintiff's lawyer spoke, and then the defendant's lawyer summed it up. In this process, lawyers of both sides should try their best to use all their eloquence and speech skills to convince or impress jurors, because the evidence and witnesses attacking the other side are unreliable, unfounded or insufficient. After the two sides have finished speaking, the jury will judge the facts of the case by consensus, and finally the judge will make a judgment on legal issues.
Second, the litigation mode emphasizes the value of procedural justice. The purpose of adversary system is to pursue procedural justice. As long as the procedure is fair and both sides are given equal rights of attack and defense, fair procedures should be maintained regardless of whether the substantive truth is discovered or not. Even if the facts claimed by the plaintiff are true, the plaintiff cannot prove them, and the judge should not take the initiative to collect evidence to prove them, thus damaging the procedure. American law emphasizes the passivity of judges as a means to safeguard justice. More democratic and fair, litigation must be promoted and developed by the parties rather than the judges.
Third, the adversary system gives the parties great power. Under the adversary system, the litigant is the main body of the judgment, and only the object of litigation put forward by the litigant can be tried by the judge. The basis for a judge to make a judgment must be based on the request made by the parties, the evidence submitted and the opinions expressed in the debate. During the trial, the parties have the right to question not only their own witnesses, but also the witnesses of the other party. The whole trial provided a stage for the parties to fully express their opinions. Confrontation system not only absorbs and encourages the parties to participate in the litigation process to the maximum extent, but also maintains the equality of litigation rights, litigation status and debate opportunities of both parties. Both sides have equal opportunities to convince the evidence and provide the referee. Whether it is a civil or criminal case, the two sides confront each other on an equal footing, and finally the referee decides the outcome.
Fourth, the judge is in the position of passive arbitrator in the process of litigation. The adversary system holds that litigation is purely a competitive competition, even a struggle, and the judge is only a passive arbitrator. Therefore, in the process of litigation, whoever can make better use of his legal knowledge and litigation skills and put forward evidence and defense opinions that are beneficial to him should win the lawsuit, so the whole lawsuit is controlled by the parties. In this process, the judge should always be in a negative role, and can't actively collect evidence according to his authority, nor can he determine the trial object and controversial points by himself. In the process of litigation, the parties and their lawyers not only fully enjoy the procedural rights of attack and defense, but also firmly control the process and development of litigation, such as whether to present evidence, what kind of evidence to present, which witness to switch, what kind of facts to investigate, and the length of trial time. , must be mastered by lawyers. The judge tried not to speak or speak less during the whole trial, but listened to the opinions of both sides patiently and calmly so as not to give people any dependence. As Jacob, an American scholar, pointed out: "Contrary to the passivity of the court, it is the initiative of lawyers. Lawyers control the process of judicial trials in the United States. Only they are responsible for the investigation of court cases and provide relevant evidence to the court. What they decide not to provide to the court, neither the court nor the jury will get it. Lawyers also control the pace of litigation. If their clients and their own interests require them to make a decision as soon as possible, they will make the whole litigation process very fast. On the contrary, if they slow down the program, they can also make the whole program crawl like a snail. Almost every link in the trial process reflects the tendency of lawyers. Although judges wear robes representing national authority, in fact, they often become hostages under the strategy of lawyers in American courts. "
The adversary system in Anglo-American law is closely related to the jury system, and the drafters of the American Constitution emphasized that the rights of judges should be restricted through the jury system. Many rules of evidence also apply to the jury system. Especially in the litigant litigation mode, the lawyer's debate is of great significance. Because the facts of a case may be tried by a jury, it is very important to impress the jurors as much as possible through debate.