CAT: Lesson - Roman Law Courts

Roman Law Courts

The image to the right shows a plaque that marks a single column of the Basilica Iulia (Julian Basilica), which is in the Roman Forum. Basilicae served many purposes, but one of the main purposes was housing the magistrates who would hear court cases. The Basilica Iulia was a completed by Julius Caesar (thus the Iulia) in 46 BCE. All that remains of the original structure are bases of the columns, as pictured.

Roman Law

Our system of law is generally based on Roman law but there are differences between the two. One major difference was in how trials were conducted.

Today, criminal charges are brought by the state and prosecuted by an employee of the government. In Roman times any citizens could press charges against a fellow citizen and bring him to trial. This goes far beyond just suing someone for a civil offense: a Roman could accuse another Roman of any crime.

Trials

Trials in the United States are held in a room set aside for that purpose. The number of spectators is limited by the size of the courtroom and there are strict limits on the decorum of the spectators who can be evicted from the court room if they don't conduct themselves in an orderly fashion. Most large-scale criminal trials in ancient Rome were held outside, usually in the Forum Romanum. Smaller civil matters were handled by magistrates in buildings like the Basilica Julia.

There were no limits on the number of people who could attend a criminal trial. The more sensational the trial, the larger the crowd. In part because of the venue of a Roman trial, there were few controls on the behavior of the spectators. Spectators would jeer the lawyers and often interrupt the speakers.  If a trial were political in nature, soldiers would often be brought in to keep some semblance of order. On a few occasions, riots erupted. Cicero, probably the most famous and skillful orator in Roman history once was so disturbed by the behavior of the audience that he could not finish his speech in defense of his client.

The image to the right shows citizens looking at a set of tablets, which contained a list of Roman laws. These tablets were called The Law of the Twelve Tables. Roman law was codified and written, so that every citizen could know what was allowable under the law.

Lawyers

Although a defendant in today's trials can defend himself or choose anyone he prefers, most defense attorneys must pass a rigorous test to receive a license to practice law. In Rome anyone could be a trial lawyer. There were no law schools, no examinations, no licensure. Most Romans who were interested in being lawyers became apprentices to other lawyers and learned from them.

Today's lawyers charge for their services. These charges vary by the quality and prestige of the lawyer and can be hundreds of dollars for each hour spent on the case. Some high profile cases cost the defendant millions of dollars. Technically, Roman lawyers were not allowed to charge for their services. However, grateful clients often rewarded their lawyers with gifts. Cicero, a man of humble origins, became quite wealthy and owned a number of villas throughout Italy. He accumulated his wealth through these gifts because of his extraordinary talent and his ability to win almost all of his cases.

Processes and Evidence

Appearance is very important in modern courtrooms. Lawyers do not want their clients to enter the courtroom in prison uniforms. Rather, they want their clients to be dressed professionally to make a good impression on the jury. Roman lawyers also wanted their clients to make an impression on the jury as well. That impression, however, was usually a quite different one. Roman defendants would appear at the trial in clothes indicating mourning. They would often bring their children and show them to the jurors in the hope that the jurors would have sympathy for them.

In today's trials the evidence is of utmost importance. Both sides produce as many witnesses as possible (some of them experts in a particular aspect of the case) to either prove the guilt of the client or to refute the charges of the prosecution. Judges will not allow evidence that does not pertain directly to the case. Although the lawyers in these cases have extensive leeway in their opening and closing arguments, they stick closely to the evidence though they will try to influence the emotions of the jurors as well. Evidence was not as important in a Roman court of law. Although evidence would be presented by both sides, much of it was irrelevant to the issue at hand. The outcome of a trial depended more on the speeches of the lawyers. These speeches may or may not hinge on the evidence. Especially if the evidence against the defendant overwhelmingly proved his guilt, his lawyer would ignore the facts altogether. Instead, he would appeal to the emotions and prejudices of the jurors. Arguments may be irrelevant; information presented may be based totally on gossip. The task was simply to see that the client was acquitted.

Verdicts

The verdict in most trials today is determined by a jury of one's peers (most juries consist of 12 people, though there can be some variance). Their decision must be unanimous. Usually, only registered voters are used as the pool from which jurors are chosen. Both the prosecution and defense have the opportunity to eliminate certain jurors from the people for whatever reason they have. In prominent cases in Rome involving such crimes as treason, murder, misconduct by governors of provinces, forgery, and election bribery, a jury pool of as many as 80 individuals would be chosen by a government official from each of the classes of citizens (plebeians, patricians, equites). At the end of the trial both the defense and the prosecution had the right to eliminate a number of those jurors (usually 5 from each class). The remaining jurors voted on a wax tablet - A (absolvo) or C (condemno). The verdict was determined by a majority of those voting.