Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Testimony

27 Pages Posted: 17 Nov 2009

See all articles by Winand Emons

Winand Emons

University of Bern - Department of Economics; Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)

Claude Fluet

Université Laval

Multiple version iconThere are 3 versions of this paper

Date Written: September 2009


An arbiter can decide a case on the basis of his priors, or the two parties to the conflict may present further evidence. The parties may misrepresent evidence in their favor at a cost. At equilibrium the two parties never testify together. When the evidence is much in favor of one party, this party testifies. When the evidence is close to the prior mean, no party testifies. We compare this outcome under a purely adversarial procedure with the outcome under a purely inquisitorial procedure (Emons and Fluet 2009). We provide sufficient conditions on when one procedure is better than the other one.

Keywords: adversarial, costly state falsification, evidence production, inquisitorial, procedure

JEL Classification: D82, K41, K42

Suggested Citation

Emons, Winand and Fluet, Claude-Denys, Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Testimony (September 2009). CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP7476, Available at SSRN:

Winand Emons (Contact Author)

University of Bern - Department of Economics ( email )

Schanzeneckstrasse 1
Postfach 8573
CH-3001 Bern
+41 31 631 3922 (Phone)
+41 31 631 3783 (Fax)


Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)

United Kingdom

Claude-Denys Fluet

Université Laval ( email )

2214 Pavillon J-A. DeSeve
Quebec, Quebec G1K 7P4
1-418-656-2131, ext 3290 (Phone)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics