• There's a fine line between the American dream and the American nightmare.

    Don Henley

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

There are parties in this movement who make assertions about the common law and its supposed merits and superiority to current law. It appears that common law proponents believe that the common law is either natural law or Biblical law, when the reality is far different and that it is neither “natural” nor entirely Biblical, but really the customs of the English people developed over hundreds of years during the late Dark Ages and Renaissance for a largely feudal, agricultural society. While Christianity is a part of it, common law is for the most part unrelated to Christianity. After all, the monarchy was part and parcel of the common law. 

Personally, I think parties to litigation should be able to testify in their own cases. However, at common law this was prohibited.  See Olive v. Adams, 50 Ala. 373 (1874). Further, Georgia had this rule as late as the early 1960s for criminal cases. If you want to read a case that discusses this common law rule of evidence that parties could not testify in their own criminal cases, please read Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 573-582, 81 S.Ct. 756 (1961), which is posted here.

Which is better: prohibiting parties from testifying in their own cases or allowing them to do so?