Paper short abstract:

The ideal of a criminal trial is the slow dispelling of doubt in order for the judges and jurals to have an intimate conviction and to give a fair judgement. .However the positions regarding doubt are different according to the judiciary actors and to the different moments of the trial

Paper long abstract:

Doubt is supposed to lie at the centre of any trial. Looking at French Assises courts, I challenge this opinion and ask: is the eventuality of doubting mere fiction? What sort of doubt is acceptable? How, when and by whom is doubt generated?

The trial begins with the reading of the bill of indictment which is already a demonstration of guilt: committal for a hearing before an Assize court, as ruled by the investigating judge, supposes that the investigation has proved the charges against the accused.

I shall examine a few cases in order to show that, even though doubt is claimed to be intrinsic to trial procedures, it is nevertheless restricted and controlled. The pre-trial investigation provides evidence and establishes "the facts" that have generally been recognized by the accused. Often no doubt is cast on the actual guilt of the accused, it is expressed regarding the circumstances, the context, the motives. The defence lawyers' strategy is not therefore about denying what is already presented as evidence, but to cast doubt on the surrounding circumstances in order, for instance, to change the way in which the crime is qualified or to mitigate the sentence.

The trial itself, according to the French procedure, does not so much focus on revealing or clarifying the facts -the crime has already been established and the "culprit" identified; it is like a ritual performance where society enacts his own willingness to recognize human dignity and to give fair treatment even to its fallen members.