Judges,juries, and the decision to convict

The bureaucratic context of criminal prosecution emphasizes efficiency; its legal context emphasizes due process and procedural fairness. This paper focuses on the trial stage of prosecution where both concerns are central. It empirically examines the bench trial, an alternative to the more commonly used plea of guilty and the more traditional trial by jury. A comparison between trial by judge and trial by jury reveals striking differences in determinations of guilt. These differences have implications for commonly held assumptions about both jury and judicial behavior.     

Mixed Court and Jury Court: Could the Continental Alternative Fill the American Need?

For cases of serious crime a number of European countries employ a variant of the jury called the mixed court, in which laymen and professional judges sit together in a single panel that deliberates and decides on all issues of verdict and sentence. Trials in the mixed court proceed quite rapidly, in large measure because the mixed court dispenses with most of the time-consuming practices of jury control that characterize Anglo-American trial procedure. Consequently, the legal system can process all cases of serious crime to full trial. The present article describes the German mixed-court system and contrasts it with the American jury, asking to what extent the mixed court serves the purposes of the jury. The conclusion is that the mixed court serves the jury policies well, though not fully; and that it is a superior alternative to the indigenous nontrial devices—plea bargaining and bench trial—that have displaced the jury from routine American practice.     

The Jury as a Translation of Democratic Participation and Political Conflict

In this response to Valerie Hans's Presidential address, I use her “legal translating” term to argue that the implementation of liberal democratic structures in new democracies opens new opportunities to translate the jury system into and onto new democratic societies. While policy makers have concerns about the strength and vibrancy of lay participation in the legal system, policy makers' decisions to adopt trial by jury are not always democratic. Nonetheless, the consequence of the translation of trial by jury furthers democratic development. Using Nicaragua, Mexico, and Russia as case studies, I suggest that one goal of policy makers who attempt to adopt trial by jury is to reduce the discretionary power of judges who remain from the prior government. Comparative trial‐by‐jury research can contribute more to our understanding of democratic development than prior research has indicated.     

美国死刑量刑程序的历史考察

美国死刑量刑程序经历了一个正当化的历史过程,早期的陪审团废法现象催生了死刑陪审团制度,死刑陪审团制度的建立又引发了死刑案件审判的两分式改革并使死刑量刑程序得以独立,特殊的"凌驾陪审团"规则体现出美国司法界力图保持死刑裁量中职业法官与平民陪审团间的权力制衡。     

The Jury between the Civil and the Criminal Law

This article comprises two case studies of a ``problem' within the Anglo-Welsh legal process of jury trial. In that tradition, the judge not only instructs on the law to be applied by the jury, s/he also ``summarises' the evidence after counsel have already done so. This summarising is largely unconstrained by appellate control. The ``problem' that the two cases present is that they were trials of ``civil' issues in which the subject matter is also categorised as ``criminal'. Where such overlaps occur the relevant law is not easy nor clear. This can present difficulties for the judge, which may and in these cases were transmitted and amplified to the jury. In the first case study, the rhetorical direction of the judge's language are analysed. In the second, the language is analysed as a generator of confusion rather than direction. In both cases the outcome in the jury's verdict reflect the judicial language. Under current British law, investigation of the conversion process from judicial ``Summing-up' through collective jury deliberation to verdict is illegal.     

Permitting Jury Discussions During Trial: Impact of the Arizona Reform

A field experiment tested the effect of an Arizona civil jury reform that allows jurors to discuss evidence among themselves during the trial. Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition, in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial, or a No Discussions condition, in which jurors were prohibited from discussing the evidence during trial according to traditional admonitions. Judicial agreement with jury verdicts did not differ between conditions. Permitting jurors to discuss the evidence did affect the degree of certainty that jurors reported about their preferences at the start of jury deliberations, the level of conflict on the jury, and the likelihood of reaching unanimity.     

评俄罗斯刑事陪审团制度的重建

苏联解体后,俄罗斯以刑事陪审团制度的推行为司法改革的突破口。改革者试图以此促进公平审判和民主政治。该制度实施以来,喜忧参半。从其未来走向来分析,陪审团审判对公平审判目标的实现将是一个长期而复杂的过程;其对民主政体的贡献亦很有限。     

An Examination of Jury Verdicts for Evidence of a Similarity-Leniency Effect,an Out-Group Punitiveness Effect or a Black Sheep Effect

Archival data from cases adjudicated by jury in El Paso and Bexar County, Texas, were used to test whether a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect, or a black sheep effect (BSE; J. M. Marques, V Y. Yzerbyt, & J. P. Leyens, 1988) influenced jury decisions. Defendant ethnicity, jury ethnic composition, and strength of evidence against the defendant were coded for 418 closed noncapital, felony cases to test their impact on trial verdicts and sentence lengths. Results indicated complex relations exist among juror and defendant characteristics and their influence on trial outcomes. No support was found for any of the theoretical models as predictors of jury decision-making. Strength of evidence was the most influential variable for both verdicts and length of sentences. Case strength, defendant ethnicity, and jury composition were related to sentence lengths.     

Korean citizen participation in criminal trials: The present situation and problems

As citizen participation in criminal trials was first introduced in 2008, it is advisable to keep the present form of an all-citizen jury system rather than introduce or adopt aspects of the Continental mixed tribunal system because the former system makes the best use of the meaning of Article 1 of the Act of Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials in Korea. Though previously professional judges participated in the deliberation process, under the current system, the new procedure should allow only jurors to engage in deliberations and render verdicts, with sentencing still left to professional judges. The new law should also eliminate a consent agreement required for a defendant in jury trial, thereby making jury trial mandatory for certain classes of heinous crimes like murder or even political crimes; juvenile cases, however, may still be excluded from jury trial. In addition, the exclusion right of the court should also be recognized, but the current comprehensive rule (Article 9 (1) (3)) should be eliminated. It is necessary for the jury verdict to have legal binding force such that the prosecutor cannot appeal the acquittal if the verdict was decided unanimously. Lastly, as for the use of victim participation programs, it is enough to simply allow victims to make statements as witness. This year, on March 6, 2013, the revised system of civil participation in criminal trials has been ready based on the evaluation of the current system by the Committee on Civil Judicial Participation, which was comprised of members from the judiciary, the academia, and civil organizations. The new amendment will be submitted to the National Assembly within this year.     

陪审团在衰退吗——当代英美陪审团的发展趋势解读

陪审团审判在民事案件和刑事案件中的使用都呈逐渐减少之趋势,并且批评陪审团审判制度的声音也越来越多。但是一些原来已经废除陪审团审判的国家却正在恢复或试图恢复这一制度。陪审团审判的生命力仍然旺盛,因为它仍然在保障自由、制约国家权力方面发挥着不可替代的作用。     

Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial

Comprehension of two sets of judges' penalty phase instructions for a capital trial was examined. The 115 subjects, recruited from jury lists, viewed one of two 20-min videotapes, prepared either from the instructions given in a specific North Carolina capital trial several years ago or from the present North Carolina pattern instructions. After viewing the tape, subjects responded to a series of eight questions, which probed their understanding of the legal issues presented in the instructions. Compared to the subjects exposed to the present pattern instructions, those exposed to the instructions from the specific trial displayed significantly inferior understanding of the legal criteria to be used in deciding the existence of mitigating circumstances and for incorporating mitigating circumstances into the final jury recommendation of life imprisonment or the death penalty. The results of the experiment are relevant to appeals beyond the specific appeal that prompted the research, and the methodology is applicable to a range of issues.     

The Presumption of Punishment

The presumption of innocence undergirds the American criminal justice system. It is so fundamental that it is derived from the concepts of due process and the importance of a fair trial. An informed, historical understanding of the interaction between the presumption of innocence and key tenets of due process can help clarify the meaning and application of the presumption of innocence in the modern day. Due process, as developed throughout English and US. Colonial history leading up to the formation of the US. Constitution, has two important implications. First, due process provides a general guarantee of liberty against punishment or imprisonment without a fair trial. Second, due process requires that a jury, as opposed to a judge, determine the factual guilt of a defendant at trial. These two key tenets were historically fundamental to due process and should guide how the presumption of innocence impacts various stages of trial, including pretrial detention decisions and sentencing. Returning to a historical understanding of due process requires that judges not determine facts or punish individuals before a trial has occurred.     

Predicting juvenile delinquency: A review of correlates and a confirmation by recent research based on an integrated theoretical model

This study is an exploration of the effects of setting cases for trial in a court that permits jury trials for juveniles. Although few cases actually go to trial, cases set for trial have an impact on juveniles and the court. The study reported here is based on data from a study of 710 youths upon whom delinquency petitions were filed in a suburban court in 1980. Of these youths, 94 had cases set for trial and 7 actually went to trial.

The first part of the article gives a brief historical perspective on the juvenile right to jury trial, discusses why defense attorneys set cases to trial, and describes some of the difficulties in measuring the impact of jury trials. The second part reports on the impact of trial setting in “Suburban Court” on case outcomes and case processing time. A partial correlation analysis shows that there is no significant association between setting a case for trial and either adjudication or final disposition, even when other factors are held constant. Setting a case for trial has a significant association with long case processing times, however. Cases set for trial take almost twice as long as other cases to move from filing to adjudication.     

VARIATION IN TRIAL PENALTIES AMONG SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENSES*

We examine the differences in the sentencing of those who plead guilty and those convicted by jury trial among defendants convicted of serious violent offenses. Drawing from a focal concerns and court communities perspective on court decision making, we develop several hypotheses about jury trial penalties for serious violent offenders, and how such penalties may vary by offense characteristics, defendant characteristics, and court contexts. Our hierarchical models using Pennsylvania sentencing data from 1997 to 2000 reveal that defendants are substantially penalized if they exercise their right to a jury trial and then lose. Furthermore, this jury trial penalty is not evenly assessed, but depends on the seriousness and type of offense, defendant criminal history, and court contextual characteristics such as caseload, court community size, local violent crime rates, and the size of local black populations.     

美国民事诉讼陪审权利适用标准演变

美国民事案件的陪审权利规定在1791年批准的第七修正案中,其规定在普通法诉讼中,金额超过20美元的民事案件享有由陪审团审理的权利。但随着普通法和衡平法的合并,以及新型民事案件的出现,第七修正案规定的陪审权利该如何适用是美国民事诉讼必须面对的问题。具体的判断标准随案件类型的不同而有所不同。     

电子证据的相关问题

在美国，使用电子证据已经成为法庭上非常普遍的现象。陪审团审案时，试图使用电子证据的检察官要想使得初审法官采纳该电子证据必须克服一些阻碍。一些证据标准被设计来限制陪审团的事实发现过程。检察官可要求法院启动庭前审理程序来决定电子证据是否可以被采纳。建立一个电子证据保管链和专门处理电子证据的既定机构程序是检方工作的关键环节，这样能确保法庭调查中获得陪审团的信任。挑选能认同电子证据重要性的人员担任陪审团成员非常重要，同时还要避免选择那些想要根据自己专业知识来主导陪审团决议的人员。     

The representative jury requirement: Jury representativeness and cross sectional participation from the beginning to the end of the jury selection process

The paper specifically addresses the many ways in which the facially neutral procedures actually fail to secure representative jury pools. Although the Sixth Amendment's fair cross‐section requirement forbids systematic discrimination in the creation of the jury venire and panel, it does not guarantee that the criminal jury will in fact reflect an accurate cross‐section of the community. As a result, not only does the Court fail to focus on nonlegally recognized screening mechanisms and factors such as exemptions, excuses, failure to followup jurors, etc., may affect jury representativeness, but also the Court never examined cross‐sectional representation at the entirety of the jury selection processes, except jury panels and final juries.

The first section of this paper presents a brief overview of the constitutional law impacting impartial juries, especially addressing the fair cross‐section doctrine that is the focus of contemporary jury selection procedures. In providing empirical and systematic comparisons of jury participation at each of the distinct jury selection stages encompassing a general population, jury wheels, jury qualified pools, jury eligibles, jury panels, and actual trial jurors, the second section of this paper makes critical analyses of the cumulative effects of screening mechanisms in jury selection. The paper assesses jury compositions by looking at demographic, socio‐economic, and ideological profiles of prospective jurors, illustrating that those jury profiles do not necessarily reflect cross‐sectional representation of the community population at comprehensive stages of the jury selection process. The analytical findings show that unless some deep seated reforms are made to eliminate cumulative effects of selection biases and correct representative imbalances of jury wheels, qualified pools, jury panels, and trial juries, historically underrepresented groups such as racial minorities, the poor, and part‐time employees will continue to be underrepresented on juries, negating the public's shared responsibility for the administration of justice in one of America's most heralded democratic institutions.     

Death penalty beliefs and jurors' responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials

Two studies explored the relationship between attitudes toward the death penalty and support for or rejection of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a capital trial. Jurors serving on jury duty voluntarily completed questionnaires in the jury lounge. In Study 1, jurors strongly opposed to the death penalty were significantly more receptive to mitigating circumstances than were the remaining jurors. In Study 2, jurors who would have been excluded for their opposition to the death penalty under theWitherspoon standard were significantly less receptive to aggravating circumstances than were the other jurors. It is suggested that the present system of death qualification in capital cases results in biases against the interest of the defendant at all stages of the trial process—jury selection, determination of guilt, and sentencing.     

The decline of civil jury trial in nineteenth-century England

The nineteenth century saw the beginning of the decline of jury trial as the main dispositive mechanism in civil cases in the Superior Courts. The Common Law Procedure Act 1854 gave civil litigants the choice of jury trial, and during the remainder of the century the proportion of litigants choosing jury trial steadily declined. However, the seeds of this decline were sown in the two decades prior to 1854, during which time three factors combined to undermine the institution of the civil jury: recognition among lawyers of the integrity of the bench, the efforts made by lawyers to professionalize the practise of law, and the successful introduction in 1846 of juryless trials in the County Courts.