If Aaron Hernandez’s case was tried in the inquisitorial system, the process of acquiring information for the dossier, which is the backbone for the case, would have “everything to do with the investigation [and it is] recorded there and it is the basis for any committal, trial, appeal”. This would avoid circumstantial evidence, which is not always accurate. Also this would have allowed for a fair and just trial to occur. However, the case was under tried under the adversarial system, where it was seen that the case was less organized from the beginning. This was due to the fact the prosecutors used text messages to infer what happened after Odin Lloyd was picked up. This led to circumstantial evidence being admitted and being the basis for …show more content…
All parties involved, the defendant and the victim (if still alive), are allowed a complete criminal investigation and trial, that is unbiased in order to allow a fair judgement in the case. This unbiased system is rooted in the willpower of obtaining the truth in legal matters by including all possible and relevant information. The political origins grounded in the inquisitorial system are seen in the organizational and procedural arrangements, which allow the state to find the truth while being subjected to the judicial scrutiny of the executive laws. The events that occur during trial are determined by the dossier because it includes all necessary information in regards to the case, which is gathered and created during the pre-trial investigation. The inquisitorial system places a lot a high regard on the dossier because it helps determine who is to be accused and who is to be put on trial. The dossier is very important because it is available to the courts prior to anyone else and they may base much of their decision on what is included in it.The adversarial system does not have something that is like the dossier. Instead, the evidence collection can happen if discovery is requested in the criminal case, if not, the evidence comes to light during trial. The evidence that is used and admitted during trial, is interpreted and explained to the jury that is present and judge by both