as initially convicted on the basis of lying testimony and withheld evidence. Given the adversarial system of Canadian justice, in which "it is assumed that the 'truth' will emerge from a contest of two competing arguments" (Boyd, 1994, p. 139), does not the probability of getting at the truth depend upon the relative abilities of the prosecuting and defending lawyers? In addition, would not an inquisitorial system (under the auspices of a judge) better insure that local police did not obscure, hide, or botch relevant evidence? At the very least a judge could ask questions that might better assess the veracity of witnesses.
Given two lawyers, one for the prosecution and one for the defense, the adversarial system is not ultimately concerned with finding truth, but with choosing from among the truths presented by "two dueling advocates" (Boyd, 1994, p. 140). In addition, because counsels are neither equal in ability nor in cost, "the strength and thoroughness of an individual's legal argument will depend, to a significant extent, upon the resources at his or her disposal" (Boyd, 1994, p. 140). Milgaard's original defense was ineffective in keeping him from a sentence of life imprisonment. He would still be in jail if not for the subsequent work of Winnipeg lawyers David Asper and Hersh Wolch, with no thanks to a judicial system nor its judges, both largely unresponsive to an innocent man's plea.
Lawyers are dependant upon the resourcefulness of police departments in gathering evidence that will be instrumental in proving their client's guilt or innocence. As will be seen in the Milgaard case, the Winnipeg police also played a part in Milgaard's wrongful conviction because they did not pursue evidence available to them--the fact that a known rapist was in the vicinity at the time. In an inquisitorial system, judges who were directing the investigation of the issues of a given case, would be held more accountable fo...