Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Testimony

24 Pages Posted: 20 Jan 2010

See all articles by Claude Fluet

Claude Fluet

Université Laval

Winand Emons

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

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 quilibrium the two parties never testify together. When theevidence 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: evidence production, procedure, costly state falsification, adversarial, inquisitorial

JEL Classification: D82, K41, K42

Suggested Citation

Fluet, Claude-Denys and Emons, Winand, Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Testimony (September 2009). Available at SSRN: or

Claude-Denys Fluet

Université Laval ( email )

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

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

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics