Our Common Law Highlighted by Frenchman's Case

In the news: former head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested recently in New York for alleged sexual assault -- and subsequently resigned his post. The case has all the trappings of a summertime blockbuster. However, for the French, conduct of the case in American courts can be perplexing, regardless of individual's political opinions of Mr. Strauss-Kahn. As the New York Times explains:

While the American justice system has its origins in British common law and involves ordinary citizens at almost every level, the French judicial system is rooted in the Napoleonic Code and is largely conducted behind closed doors. Suspects are typically ushered into courthouses through discreet side entrances, out of view of the public.

State-appointed magistrates prosecute and pass judgment in most trials without the oversight of citizen jurors, who serve only in the most serious cases. In such cases, formal charges come — if they come — only after a lengthy inquest by an investigating judge, who collects evidence on behalf of both the prosecution and defense before determining if a trial is warranted.

And in further contrast to the American system, investigating magistrates are legally bound to secrecy during an inquest.

Because of this secrecy the French judiciary has more discrete control over the case, managing the investigation on an intimate level, and deciding only then whether a trial is merited. A jury is only provided in extreme cases, the author explains.

As such, the extreme publicity which pervades the US system is perplexing to the French, who criticize it as "theatrics" and alternately praise it as a system which "does not hesitate to apprehend even the most emblematic personalities with lightning speed" -- the same criticisms and praises which our system gets from the locals, too.