This work argues that aspects of Dworkin's theory of law substantially narrow the continuum of criminal procedural rules available to a democratic state. Dworkin's theory presupposes a democratic state that inter alia precludes the use of compelled statements as evidence in criminal prosecutions; that requires the prosecuting authority to bear a high burden of proof; and that ensures citizens are not convicted with evidence too untrustworthy enough to prove guilt to a high degree of certainty. These requirements, when examined through the lens of Canada's existing criminal justice system, appear to require that system to incorporate additional procedural and evidentiary rules, including a corroboration requirement for all criminal offenses, and broader appellate review of convictions on questions of fact.