In all this the function of the advocate was reduced to a minimum. He was to make no suggestions to his client except to confess; he was not to advise him to disable any of the witnesses or to name witnesses of his own. His sole duty, we are told, was to abandon a pertinacious heretic and to admonish a Christian to tell the truth. If he chanced to gain outside information, he was not to communicate it to the prisoner but to the inquisitors and, if any friend or kinsman spoke to him about the case, he was to say that he knew nothing of it. So, in the written defence which he was required to present, he could use no information of his own, for the accused alone could state facts, and the advocate could only set them forth. He could receive nothing from the prisoner or his friends, even after the case was ended; the tribunal fixed his fee, which was paid to him by the receiver.[181]
Under such circumstances the argument which he would frame was not likely to be of any benefit to his client. If he were young, bright and ambitious, he might endeavor to impress the tribunal with his ability, although the strict secrecy imposed deprived him of the incentive which publicity would give. For the most part, however, he would discharge his nominal duties with as little waste of energy as possible; he had nothing to gain by zeal, and would be careful not to offend the inquisitors and fiscal on whom he was dependent. While, therefore, we occasionally meet with a careful and well-reasoned argument, presenting the case of the accused in the most favorable light, and pointing out the irregularities and illegality and weakness of the evidence, in general the defence is perfunctory, of no real service to the accused, while ostensibly giving him the benefit of defence by a trained lawyer and enabling the tribunal to overrule what might be alleged in his favor.
Meanwhile, at each stage of the case, the accused was subjected to searching examination. By rule, this had to be conducted by the inquisitors, and if there were two, both were required to be present; as the Suprema declared, about 1520, this was necessary to enable them to vote intelligently.[182] The fiscal, very properly, was not allowed to be present, and the notaries or secretaries were ordered to confine themselves to their duties in recording and not to interpose questions. The general instructions for these examinations are praiseworthy. In 1518 the Suprema ordered the avoidance of superfluous questioning, as it might lead the accused to contradict himself through ignorance and, in 1529, as the result of a visitation of Saragossa, it rebuked the inquisitors for asking irrelevant questions instead of confining themselves to the subject matter, as required by the Instructions. The questions were to be clearly and intelligibly put, and the accused was to answer them categorically, yes or no. He was not to be deceived or misled by being made to believe that there was evidence where none existed, nor was he to be questioned about accomplices, unless there were sufficient indications concerning them.[183] Unlike the medieval Inquisition, where every kind of deceit was allowed to entrap the accused into compromising himself, the final rules, formally expressed by Pablo García, were that the inquisitors must carefully abstain from interrogating the prisoner about matters not included or indicated in the evidence, and from leading him to believe that mere suspicions were knowledge founded on proof.[184] Yet, with marked inconsistency, the monitions with which the trials opened, assumed, as we have seen, the guilt of the prisoner, that ample information existed of it, and that his confession was wanted for his own salvation.