?????

I question how even the sloppiest documentary (and there are some real stinkers calling themselves by the name) could make such a claim. Every single one of the listed elements of Inquisition trials was included because it was already a part of Roman law. Roman law formed the basis of the legal systems of the courts of medieval Europe and is still the basis for many of the legal structures of European states, e.g. France. The legal structure of the Anglosphere, including that of the United States, is based on English Common Law, which, although it too is based ultimately on Roman law, includes a number of important distinctions from Roman law. Most notably Common Law provides for the ability of the court itself to interpret the law, or in cases in which there are no existing laws or statutes to define the law, an expansion of Roman law's provision to allow actiones in factum by the presiding praetor in civil suits for which there is no clear prescription according to the law. In any case, the basic structure and process of English Common Law was already in place centuries before the Inquisition. Nor is Roman law and its medieval successors the earliest form of the basic process of seeking legal counsel and examining witnesses. The Athenians were doing that in court when Rome was a bunch of shepherd's huts clustered over the Tiber floodplain. And the basic idea of calling witnesses and of designating legal counsel goes back even further. Already in Homer and in Near Eastern texts elements of such practices can be found--such practices clearly predate even writing in their most basic form.