Talk:Inquest

Canada?

What are inquest procedures like in Canada? 140.247.248.126 19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

US section

the blurb about Wyatt Earp et al may or mat not be interesting, but adds nothing about inquests in the US. We need something about how and when they operate. Wschart (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone know any more about this subject?

Having read the article, a great deal remains unclear to me: 1) What role do inquests have in countries such as Canada, Australia, NZ? 2) In the US "These inquests are not themselves trials, but investigations. Depending on the state, they may be characterized as judicial, quasi-judicial, or non-judicial proceedings". Are they themselves trials in England and Wales? Are they characterised as judicial in England and Wales (presumably yes)? 3) In the US "Inquests themselves generally are public proceedings, though the accused may not be entitled to attend." Are they public proceedings in England and Wales? 4) In the US "Coroners are generally not bound by the jury's conclusion". Are English coroners bound by jury's conclusions (in cases where a jury is required or has been summoned)? I know there are separate articles on inquests in England and Wales and on coroner's juries, but I couldn't spot the answer there either. 5) Historically, were coroners bound by jury's conclusions at common law? 6) In England and Wales the term "verdict" was formerly used to describe the coroner's formal conclusion. Is this used in the US? When did it drop out of use? 7) If these inquests developed from "Scandinavian and Carolingian" institutions, do any of those countries have inquests today? 8) In the inquiry described by Caesar, a finding of guilt resulted in punishment - if this really is the predecessor of a modern inquest, at what point in history did inquests move from convicting and pronouncing punishment, over to merely indicting for trial (and then subsequently not even that)? 86.163.171.174 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)