Talking it over: the case of oral argument vs. printed document.

Palazuelos said he preferred the French system of three judges who are allowed to interrogate during the trial. "Everything is in writing and the three judges, who are trained judicial people, will make the final decision. This is much better than having a group of 12 unsuited or incompetent people decide a suspect's fate."

Although Mexican lawyers have to verbally present various legal submissions to judges as part of the present legal system, oral trials would be much more testing for their skills as orators and cross-examiners. So will they be able to cut the verbal mustard?

"I believe the vast majority ... have these qualities because they are well prepared. In the Anglo-Saxon system, this kind of theater is done to convince people who are not experts in the law. But in Mexico, in the future, this will be developed and displayed before a person who is an expert in law ... the judge," Madrigal said.

However, Soriano was not so sure. "I think it could be a real challenge for many colleagues."

In the current system, lawyers are able to cross-examine, but only indirectly. The lawyer poses the question, the court decides if the question is correctly posed and directly related to the case, and then puts the question to the witness.

Aguilar Zinser says this practice is "incredibly obsolete."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

"I think most lawyers in Mexico are prepared to cross-examine directly. It's going to be a good experience for us," he said.

James Blears is a Mexico City-based freelance writer and a correspondent for Standard Radio News in Mexico.