Recently the Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police Department claimed that the 50 percent acquittal rate for cases going to trial is an unacceptable conviction rate and that such a poor yield on convictions is largely due to unreasonable protections for the accused, the requirement of jury unanimity, and the adversarial system itself, which is perceived as often obstructing the search for truth. While it is true that of the overall acquittal rate in Victoria in 1980 was 12.4 percent when the guilty pleas that precluded a trial are considered. While this does not in itself undermine criticisms of the acquittal rate yielded by trials, it does give a more accurate view of the likelihood that a person charged will be found guilty. The debate hinges upon a determination of what is an appropriate acquittal rate and the criteria for determining that rate. Further, reasons for acquittals in particular cases should be examined. If they appear due to procedural obstructions to the search for truth rather than a lack of solid evidence, then the reasonableness and relative values of those obstructions should be carefully considered. Requiring that the accused be subject to cross-examination (abolishing the unsworn statement) and that the jury verdict be only by majority are suggestions whose possible effects must be carefully analyzed. It is appropriate that a Royal Commission be appointed to look into such issues and render a judgment; however, it is inevitable that any position finally taken on the matter will involve values and priorities. Tabular data and 31 notes are provided.