Classical criminal procedure was secret and denied the accused all knowledge

Evidence

In France, as in most European countries, with the notable exception of England, the entire criminal procedure, right up to the sentence, remained secret: that is to say, opaque, not only to the public but also to the accused himself. It took place without him, or at least without his having any knowledge either of the charges or of the evidence. In the order of criminal justice, knowledge was the absolute privilege of the prosecution. The preliminary investigation was carried out ‘as diligently and secretly as may be’, as the edict of 1498 put it. According to the ordinance of 1670, which confirmed and, on certain points, reinforced the severity of the preceding period, it was impossible for the accused to have access to the documents of the case, impossible to know the identity of his accusers, impossible to know the nature of the evidence before objecting to witnesses, impossible to make use, until the last moments of the trial, of the documents in proof, impossible to have a lawyer, either to ensure the proper conduct of the case, or to take part, on the main issue, in the defence. — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 86

Categorization

• XREF: The producer-side secret knowledge of the magistrate is the mirror image of the panopticon’s one-way visibility: power sees without being seen. — connects to: Colonial interrogation compelled complete forced confession regardless of truth — Frantz Fanon, Constance Farrington, Black skin, white masks, 942
• QUESTION: Foucault flags secret procedure as the prehistory of the later written, documentary truth that bureaucracy will institutionalize — worth tracing the continuity.

Broader Connections

• Colonial interrogation compelled complete forced confession regardless of truth #corroborates (0.75) — Frantz Fanon, Constance Farrington, Black skin, white masks, 942