Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:11:48.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Advances in Lay Participation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2021

Edited by
Sanja Kutnjak Ivković ,
Shari Seidman Diamond ,
Valerie P. Hans  and
Nancy S. Marder
Sanja Kutnjak Ivković
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Shari Seidman Diamond
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Valerie P. Hans
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Nancy S. Marder
Affiliation:
Chicago-Kent College of Law
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts
A Global Perspective
 , pp. 23 - 128
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Almeida, V., Bakrokar, D., & Bilinski, M. (2016, June). From civil law to common law in Argentina: The jury´s great potential to put an end to the Inquisition’s culture [Paper presentation]. Law and Society Association meeting, New Orleans, USA.Google Scholar
Asociación Argentina de Juicio por Jurados [Argentina Association of Trial by Jury]. (2018). Mendoza: Multitudinaria conferencia y simulacro de juicio por jurados [Mendoza: Multitudinous conference and mock jury trial]. www.juicioporjurados.org/2018/08/mendoza-multitudinaria-conferencia-y.htmlGoogle Scholar
Asociación Argentina de Juicio por Jurados(2019). Mendoza: Absolvieron a la mujer que mató a su marido en Godoy Cruz [Mendoza: The woman accused of murdering her husband was acquitted in Godoy Cruz]. www.juicioporjurados.org/2019/05/mendoza-absolvieron-la-mujer-que-mato.html#moreGoogle Scholar
Asociación Argentina de Juicio por Jurados (2020). Argentina’s President Alberto Fernández announced that the federal jury bill will be sent to the Congress for its approval. www.juicioporjurados.org/2020/03/argentinas-president-alberto-fernandez.htmlGoogle Scholar
Binder, A. M. (2012). La implementación de la nueva justicia penal adversarial [The implementation of the new adversarial criminal justice]. Buenos Aires: Ad Hoc.Google Scholar
Binder, A. M. (2015). Contra la inquisición: Notas y ensayos breves sobre la justicia penal [Against the inquisition: Notes and short essays about criminal justice]. Buenos Aires: Ad Hoc.Google Scholar
Binder, A. M., & Harfuch, A. (2016). El juicio por jurados en la jurisprudencia nacional e internacional: Sentencias comentadas y opiniones académicas del common law, del civil law y de la Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos [Trial by jury in the national and international jurisprudence: Commented rulings and scholarly opinions from the common law, the civil law, and the European Court of Human Rights]. Buenos Aires: Ad Hoc.Google Scholar
Bruzzone, G. (2000). El juicio por jurado en el proceso penal [Trial by jury in a criminal proceeding]. Buenos Aires: Ad Hoc.Google Scholar
Cafferata Nores, J. (2012). Manual de derecho procesal penal [Handbook of criminal procedural law]. Córdoba, Argentina: Advocatus.Google Scholar
Canales, Mariano Eduardo y otros, Corte Suprema de Justicia, 461/2016/RH1 (2019).Google Scholar
Carvajal, D. A. y otros s/homicidio doblemente calificado, Tribunal Penal de Impugnación Penal de Neuquén (2015). http://181.168.124.69:81/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=135Google Scholar
Chayer, J., Spector, H., & Zacchino, P. (2010). Index of trust in justice. www.scribd.com/document/50547049/indice-2010-di-tellaGoogle Scholar
Chizik, N. (2018, June). The aboriginal jury in Argentina and the possibility of a “grafting-transplant” [Paper presentation]. Law and Society Association meeting, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Código Procesal Penal de la Nación Argentina [Code of Criminal Procedure of the Argentine Nation] (1991). http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/0-4999/383/texact.htmGoogle Scholar
Código Procesal Penal de la Provincia de Buenos Aires [Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Buenos Aires (Arg.)], Act 14.543 (2013).Google Scholar
Código Procesal Penal de la Provincia de Río Negro [Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Río Negro (Arg.)], Act 5020 (2014); (amended 2019).Google Scholar
Código Procesal Penal de la Provincia de San Juan [Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of San Juan (Arg.)], Act 1851 (2018).Google Scholar
Coelho, J. M. (2016). First verdict “not guilty” of San Isidro: Interview with Judge María Coelho. www.juicioporjurados.org/2016/03/no-culpable-en-san-isidro-entrevista-la.htmlGoogle Scholar
Constable, M. (1994). The law of the other: The mixed jury and changing conceptions of citizenship, law and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Constitución de la Nación Argentina [National Constitution of Argentina] (1994). http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/0-4999/804/norma.htmGoogle Scholar
Damaška, M. R. (1986). The faces of justice and state authority: A comparative approach to the legal process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dann, B. M., & Logan, G. (1996). Jury reform: The Arizona experience. Judicature, 79, 280–286.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. S. (2016). Las múltiples dimensiones del juicio por jurados: Estudios sobre el comportamiento del jurado: Jurado penal y jurado civil [The many dimensions of trial by jury: Studies of jury behavior. Criminal and civil jury trials]. Buenos Aires: Ad-Hoc Publishers.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. S., & Hans, V. P. (2019, May). Gender on the Argentine jury [Paper presentation]. Law and Society Association meeting, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. S., Porterie, S., & Romano, A. (2018, June). The power of the jury: Discovering the jury trial in the province of Buenos Aires [Paper presentation]. Law and Society Association meeting, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. S., Rose, M. R., & Murphy, B. (2006). Revisiting the unanimity requirement: The behavior of the non-unanimous civil jury. Northwestern University Law Review, 100, 201–230.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T, Hannaford-Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., Waters, N. L., Munsterman, G. T., Schwab, S. J., & Wells, M. T. (2005). Judge-jury agreement in criminal cases: A partial replication of Kalven and Zeisel’s The American jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2, 171–207.Google Scholar
Elhart, R. (2017, June). Juicio por jurados: El otro paradigma [Trial by jury: The other paradigm]. Pensamiento Penal LJ, pp. 1–2. www.pensamientopenal.com.ar/system/files/2017/06/doctrina45389.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hannaford-Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., Mott, N. L., & Munsterman, G .T. (2002). Are hung juries a problem? www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_Juries_HungJuriesPub.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hans, V. P. (2014). ¿Cuál es la diferencia que hace un jurado? [What difference does a jury make?] In Hans & Gastil, 2014 (pp. 21–45).Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., & Gastil, J. (Eds.). (2014). El juicio por jurados: Investigaciones sobre la deliberacíon, el veredicto y la democracia [Trial by jury: Studies on deliberation, verdict, and democracy]. Buenos Aires: Ad Hoc.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., Porterie, S., & Romano, A. (2018, June). A new jury system at work [Paper presentation]. Law and Society Association meeting, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Harfuch, A. (2013). El juicio por jurados en la provincia de Buenos Aires: Ley provincial 14.543 anotada y comentada. El modelo de jurado clásico [Trial by jury in the province of Buenos Aires: Notes on the provincial law 14.543. The classic jury model]. Buenos Aires: Ad Hoc.Google Scholar
Harfuch, A. (2014). El jurado clásico: Manual modelo de instrucciones al jurado. Ley modelo de juicio por jurados [The classic jury: Handbook guide for jury instructions. Trial by jury model law]. Buenos Aires: Ad Hoc.Google Scholar
Harfuch, A. (2015). La firmeza (finalidad) del veredicto del jurado [The finality of the jury’s verdict]. In Letner, G & Piñeyro, L (Eds.), II congreso internacional de juicio por jurados [Second international conference of trial by jury] (pp. 85–112). Buenos Aires: Jusbaires.Google Scholar
Harfuch, A. (2018, June). The status of trial by jury in Latin America [Paper presentation]. Law and Society Association meeting, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Harfuch, A. (2019a, May). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruling and the expansion of the jury in Argentina and Latin America [Paper presentation]. Law and Society Association meeting, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Harfuch, A. (2019b). El veredicto del jurado [The verdict of the jury]. Buenos Aires: Ad Hoc.Google Scholar
Harfuch, A., Bilinski, M., & Ortiz, A. (2017). El jurado indigena en Argentina [The indigenous jury in Argentina]. In Letner, G & Piñeyro, L (Eds.), Juicio por jurados en el procedimiento penal [Trial by jury in a criminal procedure] (pp. 25–32). Buenos Aires: Jusbaires.Google Scholar
Hendler, E. S. (2001–2002). Lay participation in the judicial process: The situation in Argentina. Saint Louis–Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal, 2001–2002, 81–88.Google Scholar
Hendler, E. S. (2008). Lay participation in Argentina: Old history, recent experience. Southwestern Journal of International Law, 15, 1–29.Google Scholar
Herrmann, S., MacDonald, D., Tauscher, R., & Layton, M. L. (2011). Perspectivas desde el barómetro de las américas: 2011. Confianza en el sistema de justicia penal de las Américas, Nº62 [Prospects from America’s barometer: 2011. Confidence in America’s criminal justice system, No. 62]. www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/I0862es2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Kovalev, N. (2010). Criminal justice reform in Russia, Ukraine and the Former Republics of the Soviet Union: Trial by jury and mixed courts. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Las reformas clave que Suárez impulsara en la Justicia [The key justice reforms that Suárez will push]. (2020). El Sol. www.elsol.com.ar/las-reformas-clave-que-suarez-impulsara-en-la-justiciaGoogle Scholar
Latinobarómetro [Latinobarometer]. (1995–2015, excluding 2012 and 1999). www.latinobarometro.org/lat.jspGoogle Scholar
Ley de Juicio por Jurados de Chaco [Jury Trial Law of Chaco (Arg.)], Act 7661 (2015).Google Scholar
Ley de Juicio por Jurados de Chubut [Jury Trial Law of Chubut (Arg.)], Act XV No. 30, Decree No. 78 (2019).Google Scholar
Ley de Juicio por Jurados de Entre Ríos [Jury Trial Law of Entre Ríos (Arg.)], Act 10.746 (2019).Google Scholar
Ley de Juicio por Jurados de Mendoza [Jury Trial Law of Mendoza (Arg.)], Act 9106 (2018).Google Scholar
Ley de Juicio por Jurados de Neuquén [Jury Trial Law of Neuquén (Arg.)], Act 2784 (2011).Google Scholar
Lopez, Mauro Gabriel s/recurso de Queja interpuesto por Agente Fiscal, Tribunal de Casación Penal de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. (2016). www.defensapublica.org.ar/JURISDICCIONAL/Jurisprudencia/tribunal_de_casacion/Fallos_por_temas/Juicio_x_Jurados/Recurso_Fiscal_Juicio_x_Jurados.pdfGoogle Scholar
MacCoun, R. J., & Tyler, T. (1988). The basis of citizens’ perceptions of the criminal jury: Procedural fairness, accuracy, and efficiency. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J. B. J. (2004). Derecho procesal penal tomo II, encuadernados [Procedural criminal law, Vol. 2, bound]. San Juan: University of Puerto Rico Press.Google Scholar
Ministerio Público de la Defensa [Public Ministry of Defense (Arg.)]. (2015, June 9). Diez: “El juicio por jurados es una garantía del imputado” [Diez: “Trial by jury is a right for the defendant”]. www.mpdneuquen.gob.ar/index.php/2-sin-clasificar/302-diez-el-juicio-por-jurados-es-una-garantia-del-imputadoGoogle Scholar
New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1923).Google Scholar
Observatorio Permanente de Juicios por Jurados de la Universidad Nacional del Sur [Permanent Observatory of Jury Trials of Universidad Nacional del Sur]. (2016). Juicio por jurados. Informe. [Trial by jury. Report.] Editorial de la Universidad Nacional del Sur. Ediuns.Google Scholar
Porterie, S., & Romano, A. (2016). Juries and democratic legitimacy: The jury trial in the public debate in Argentina. www.academia.edu/32284058/Google Scholar
Porterie, S., & Romano, A. (2018). El poder del jurado: Descubriendo el juicio por jurados en la Provincia de Buenos Aires [The power of the jury: Discovering trial by jury in the province of Buenos Aires]. Buenos Aires: INECIP.Google Scholar
Protocolo de Actuación en Juicios con Jurados Populares: Acuerdo 260, Serie “A,” Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Provincia de Córdoba [Protocol with guidelines on trial by jury: Agreement 260, “A” Series, Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Córdoba (Arg.)] (2017, May 8).Google Scholar
Louisiana, Ramos v., 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020).Google Scholar
Rose, M. R., Ellison, C., & Diamond, S. S. (2010). Judges and juries in the public’s mind. Judicature, 93, 194–200.Google Scholar
Sociedad: El pueblo, más sabio que los abogados [Society: The people, wiser than the attorneys]. (2015, November 5). Página/12. www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/sociedad/3-285450-2015-11-05.htmlGoogle Scholar
Thaman, S. C. (1999). Europe’s new jury systems: The cases of Spain and Russia. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 233–259.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Juries Act (1974). www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23/contentsGoogle Scholar
VRP, VPC, and others v. Nicaragua, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (ser. C) No. 350 (2018, March 8).Google Scholar

References

Amietta, S. A. (2010). Tendencias en juicios por jurados en Latinoamérica [Latin American trends in trials by jury]. In Bergoglio, M. I. (Ed.), Subiendo al estrado: La experiencia cordobesa de juicios por jurados [Getting on the stand: Cordoba’s experience with jury trials] (pp. 37–51). Córdoba, Argentina: Advocatus.Google Scholar
Amietta, S. A.(2011). Governance in Córdoba’s mixed tribunal: A study on microphysics of power. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 1(1), 1–33. http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/43Google Scholar
Bergoglio, M. I. (2008). New paths toward judicial legitimacy: The experience of mixed tribunals in Córdoba. Southwestern Journal of International Law, 14(2), 319–339.Google Scholar
Bergoglio, M. I.(2011). Metropolitan and town juries: The influence of social context on lay participation. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 86, 831–853.Google Scholar
Cavallero, R., & Hendler, E. (1988). Justicia y participación: El juicio por jurados en materia penal [Justice and participation: Jury trials in criminal matters]. Buenos Aires: Universidad.Google Scholar
Dirección Nacional de Política Criminológica [National Directorate of Criminal Intelligence (Arg.)]. (2017). https://datos.gob.ar/dataset/seguridad-estadisticas-criminales-republica-argentina-por-provinciasGoogle Scholar
Dzur, A. W. (2012). Punishment, participatory democracy and the jury. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: John Wiley & Son.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T., Hannaford-Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., Waters, N. L., Munsterman, G. T., Schwab, S. J., & Wells, M. T. (2005). Judge-jury agreement in criminal cases: A partial replication of Kalven and Zeisel’s The American jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2, 171–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740–1461.2005.00035.xGoogle Scholar
Farrell, A., & Givelber, D. (2010). Liberation reconsidered: Understanding why judges and juries disagree about guilt. Journal of Criminal Law, 100, 1549–1586. http://iris.lib.neu.edu/slaw_fac_pubs/27Google Scholar
Ferrer, C., & Grundy, C. (2005). El nuevo juicio penal con jurados en la provincia de Córdoba [The new criminal jury trial in the province of Córdoba]. Córdoba, Argentina: Ed. Mediterránea.Google Scholar
Freedman, D., Pisani, R., & Purves, R. (2007). Statistics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Gastil, J. (2018). The lessons and limitations of experiments in democratic deliberation. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsciGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., Weiser, P. J., & Simmons, C. (2010). The jury and democracy: How jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Spence, L. K. (2005). Why do people accept public policies they oppose? Testing legitimacy theory with a survey-based experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 58(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800201Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L., Lodge, M., & Woodson, B. (2014). Losing, but accepting: Legitimacy, positivity theory, and the symbols of judicial authority. Law & Society Review, 48, 837–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12104Google Scholar
Goldbach, T., & Hans, V. (2014). Juries, lay judges, and trials. In Bruinsma, G & Weisburd, D (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 2716–2727). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Han, P., Párraga, J., & Morales, J. (2006). La participación ciudadana en la justicia penal venezolana [Citizen participation in Venezuelan criminal justice]. CENIPEC, 2(25), 247–269.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P. (2008). Jury systems around the world. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172319Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1991). The American jury at twenty-five years. Law & Social Inquiry, 16, 324–351.Google Scholar
Iontcheva, J. (2003). Jury sentencing as democratic practice. Virginia Law Review, 89, 311–383.Google Scholar
Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Kessler, G. (2009). El sentimiento de inseguridad: Sociología del temor al delito [The feeling of insecurity: Sociology of the fear of crime]. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Kim, S., Park, J., Park, K., & Eom, J.-S. (2013). Judge–jury agreement in criminal cases: The first three years of the Korean jury system. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10, 35–53.Google Scholar
Kutnjak Ivković, S. (2015). Ears of the deaf: The theory and reality of lay judges in mixed tribunals. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 90, 1031–1067.Google Scholar
Latinobarómetro [Latinobarometer]. (1995–2011). www.latinobarometro.org/latOnline.jspGoogle Scholar
Ley No. 9182, Legislación Provincial de Córdoba [Law No. 9182, Legislature of the Province of Córdoba (Arg.)] (2004).Google Scholar
Leipold, A. D. (2005). Why are federal judges so acquittal prone? Washington University Law Quarterly, 83, 151–227.Google Scholar
Lembcke, O. W. (2008). The dynamics of legitimacy: A critical reconstruction of Max Weber’s concept. Recht der Werkelijkheid, 3, 33–47.Google Scholar
Levine, J. P. (1983). Jury toughness: The impact of conservatism on criminal court verdicts. Crime & Delinquency, 29, 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112878302900103Google Scholar
Machura, S. (2003). Fairness, justice, and legitimacy: Experiences of people’s judges in South Russia. Law & Policy, 25, 123–150.Google Scholar
Marder, N. (2005). The jury process. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Orias Arredondo, R. (2013). Jueces ciudadanos: Democratizando la justicia en Bolivia [Citizen judges: Democratizing justice in Bolivia]. Revista Sistemas Judiciales, 9(17), 26–38.Google Scholar
Park, R. Y. (2010). The globalizing jury trial: Lessons and insights from Korea. American Journal of Comparative Law, 58, 525–582. https://doi.org/10.5131/ajcl.2009.0049Google Scholar
Piden debate sobre jurados populares [They are calling for a debate on popular juries]. (2004, August 7). La Voz del Interior. http://buscador.lavoz.com.arGoogle Scholar
Power, T. J., & Cyr, J. M. (2010). Mapping political legitimacy in Latin America. International Social Science Journal, 60, 253–272.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., & Hough, M. (2009). Public opinion and the jury: An international literature review. London: Ministry of Justice. http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/3795/Google Scholar
Rosanvallon, P. (2009). La legitimidad democrática: Imparcialidad, reflexividad, proximidad [Democratic legitimacy: Impartiality, reflexivity, proximity]. Buenos Aires: Manantial.Google Scholar
Rusca, B. (2014). La implementación del juicio por jurado en delitos de corrupción: Un análisis de la experiencia cordobesa [The implementation of the jury trial in corruption crimes: An analysis of the Córdoba experience]. Revista de La Facultad. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales de La Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC), 5, 107–124.Google Scholar
Smulovitz, C. (2008). La política por otros medios: Judicialización y movilización legal en Argentina [Politics by other means: Judicialization and legal mobilization in Argentina]. Desarrollo Económico, 48, 287–305.Google Scholar
Tarditti, A., & Ferrer, C. (2016). El juicio con jurados populares: A diez años de su aplicación en la provincia de Córdoba [The trial with popular juries: Ten years after its application in the province of Córdoba]. In Investigaciones aplicadas en el ámbito del Poder Judicial de Córdoba III [Applied research in the area of the Córdoba Judicial Power III] (pp. 49–84). Córdoba: Centro Judicial Ricardo Nuñez. http://campusvirtual.justiciacordoba.gob.ar/moodle/repository/investigacion/publica/tomo11/11_02.pdfGoogle Scholar
Tocqueville, A. de. (1840). Democracy in America. Translated by Henry Reeve. Pennsylvania State University, Electronic Classics Series. http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Alexis-de-Tocqueville-Democracy-in-America.pdfGoogle Scholar
Toharia, J. J. (1987). Pleitos tengas … Introducción a la cultura legal española [Disputes you have … Introduction to Spanish legal culture]. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.Google Scholar
Turner, F. C., & Carballo, M. (2010). Cycles of legitimacy and delegitimation across regimes in Argentina, 1900–2008. International Social Science Journal, 60, 273–283.Google Scholar
Varona Gómez, D. (2009). ¿Somos los españoles punitivos? Actitudes punitivas y reforma penal en España [Are we Spaniards punitive? Punitive attitudes and penal reform in Spain]. InDret, 1/2009, 2–31.Google Scholar
Voigt, S. (2008). The (economic) effects of lay participation in courts: A cross-country analysis. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 2365. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1226682Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretative sociology. Edited by Roth, G & Wittich, C. Los Angeles: University of California Press. https://archive.org/details/MaxWeberEconomyAndSocietyGoogle Scholar
Zaffaroni, R. (2012, November 12). El juicio por jurados no funciona [Trial by jury doesn’t work]. Página/12. www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/subnotas/76068–24551-2006–11-12.htmlGoogle Scholar

References

Anderson, K., & Saint, E. (2005). Japan’s quasi-jury (Saiban-in) law: An annotated translation of the act concerning participation of lay assessors in criminal trials. Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, 6, 233–283.Google Scholar
Bacon, P., Reiterer, M., & Vanoverbeke, D. (2017). Recent developments on the death penalty in Japan: Public opinion and the lay judge system. In Benedek, W, Kettemann, M. C., Klaushofer, R, Lukas, K, & Nowak, M (Eds.), European Yearbook on Human Rights (pp. 103–118). Vienna: NWV.Google Scholar
Dobrovolskaia, A. (2004). An all-laymen jury system instead of the lay assessor (Saiban’in) system for Japan? Anglo-American-style jury trials in Okinawa under the US occupation. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 37, 966–973.Google Scholar
First death penalty handed down by lay judges. (2010, November 17). Japan Times. www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/11/17/national/first-death-penalty-handed-down-by-lay-judges/#.XbBE7i2B3_QGoogle Scholar
Foote, D. H. (1991) Confessions and the right to silence in Japan. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, 21, 415–488.Google Scholar
Foote, D. H.(1996). Judicial creation of norms in Japanese labor law: Activism in the service of stability. UCLA Law Review, 43, 635–709.Google Scholar
Foote, D. H.(2014). Citizen participation: Appraising the Saiban’in system. Michigan State International Law Review, 22, 755–775.Google Scholar
Fujita, M. (2018). Japanese society and lay participation in criminal justice: Social attitudes, trust, and mass media. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Fukurai, H. (2007). The rebirth of Japan’s petit quasi-jury and grand jury systems: Cross national analysis of legal consciousness and lay participatory experience in Japan and the US. Cornell International Law Journal, 40, 315–354.Google Scholar
Fukurai, H.(2011). Japan’s quasi-jury and grand jury systems as deliberative agents of social change: De-colonial strategies and deliberative participatory democracy. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 86, 789–829.Google Scholar
Fukurai, H.(2012). Lay prosecution of US military crimes in Japan by prosecutorial review commissions and the Saiban’in trial. In Scheiber, H. N. & Ginsburg, T (Eds.), Japanese legal system: An era of transition (pp. 131–160). Berkeley, CA: Robbins Collection Publisher.Google Scholar
Fukurai, H.(2014). Okinawa’s citizen judge panels vs. US military hegemony: Wikileaks’ secret US cable document on the lay adjudication of American soldier criminal cases in Japan’s Saiban’in trials. International Journal of Okinawan Studies, 4, 13–30.Google Scholar
Fukurai, H.(2020). Unprecedented trials in Asia and beyond: Okinawa’s global jury in criminal and civil cases under the US military occupation and search for the right to self-determination. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., Weiser, P. J., & Simmons, C. (2010). The jury and democracy: How jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hamada, S. (2001). Jihaku no shinrigaku [Psychology of confession]. Tokyo: Iwanami shinsho.Google Scholar
Hirano, R. (1985). Gendai keiji soshōhō no shindan [Diagnosis of the current code of criminal procedure]. In Hiraba, Y, Hirano, R, Takada, T, Fukuda, T, Ōtsuka, H, Kagawa, T, Naitō, K, & Matsuo, K (Eds.), Dandō Shigemitsu hakase koki shukuga ronbunshū [Collection of essays to celebrate Dr. Shigemitsu Dandō’s seventieth birthday] (Vol. 4, pp. 423–462). Tokyo: Yukikaku.Google Scholar
Hirano, R.(1989). Diagnosis of the current code of criminal procedure. Law Japan, 22, 129–142.Google Scholar
Hirayama, M. (2012). Lay judge decisions in sex crime cases: The most controversial area of Saiban-in trials. Yonsei Law Journal, 3, 128–160.Google Scholar
Ii, T. (2019). Anata mo asu wa saiban’in!? [You will also become a Saiban’in tomorrow!?] Tokyo: Nihon hyōronsha.Google Scholar
Isa, C. (2006). Saiban’in seido wa keijisaiban o kaeru ka: Baishin seido o motomeru riyū [Will the Saiban’in system change the criminal trial? Why the jury system is necessary]. Tokyo: Gendai jinbunsha.Google Scholar
Ishimatsu, T., Tsuchiya, K., & Isa, C. (2007). Enzai o umu saiban’in seido: Baishin saiban no fukkatsu ni mukete [The Saiban’in system that manufactures wrongful convictions: The effort to resurrect the jury system]. Tokyo: Gendai jinbunsha.Google Scholar
Ito, M. (2013, February 21). Three murderers sent to the gallows. Japan Times. www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/21/national/crime-legal/japan-executes-three-inmates/#.Xajh_fZFw2wGoogle Scholar
Jellab, A., & Giglio-Jacquemot, A. (2012). Des profanes en justice, les jurés d’assises: Entre légitimité et contestation du pouvoir des juges [Public jury trials and the challenges of the court of law: Between nonprofessional legitimacy and questioning judges’ power]. L’Année sociologique, 62, 143–193.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. T. (2002). The Japanese way of justice: Prosecuting crime in Japan. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. T.(2012). Japan’s prosecution system. Crime and Justice, 41, 35–74.Google Scholar
Kage, R. (2017). Who judges? Designing jury systems in Japan, East Asia, and Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kawashima, T. (1963). Dispute resolution in contemporary Japan. In Von Mehren, A. T. (Ed.), Law in Japan: The legal order in a changing society (pp. 41–72). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kawashima, T.(1967). Nihonjin no hōishiki [The law consciousness of the Japanese]. Tokyo: Iwanami shinsho.Google Scholar
Koschmann, J. V. (1996). Revolution and subjectivity in postwar Japan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, M., & Tice, V. (2009). Japan’s new citizen judges: How secrecy imperils judicial reform. Asia-Pacific Journal, 19(7): 6–9.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (Japan). (2018). Heisei 30 nenban, hanzai hakusho: Susumu kōreika to hanzai [White paper on crime]. http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/65/nfm/mokuji.htmlGoogle Scholar
Miyazawa, S., & Hirayama, M. (2017). Introduction of videotaping of interrogations and the lessons of the Imaichi case: A case of conventional criminal justice policy-making in Japan. Washington International Law Journal Association, 27, 149–176.Google Scholar
Murakami, S. (2018, June 18). Japan’s criminal justice reforms aim to enhance transparency of interrogations: Are they working? Japan Times. www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/06/18/reference/japans-criminal-justice-reforms-aim-enhance-transparency-interrogations-working/Google Scholar
Odanaka, T. (2001) Konpan no shihō seido kaikaku no “gyakukaikaku” teki honshitsu [The “counter-reformative” essence of today’s judicial reforms]. Hō to minshushugi, 360, 36–38.Google Scholar
Prime minister’s policy speech. (2001, May 8). Japan Times. www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2001/05/08/national/prime-ministers-policy-speech/#.XbBFPi2B3_QGoogle Scholar
Reiterer, M., & Vanoverbeke, D. (2011). Japan and the death penalty from a European perspective: At a crossroads to a changing discourse on human rights? In Benedek, W, Benoit-Rohmer, F, Karl, W, & Nowak, M (Eds.), European Yearbook on Human Rights (pp. 267–281). Vienna: NWV.Google Scholar
Reiterer, M., & Vanoverbeke, D.(2014). ASEAN’s regional approach to human rights: The limits of the European model? In Benedek, W, Benoit-Rohmer, F, Karl, W, Kettemann, M, & Nowak, M (Eds.), European Yearbook on Human Rights (pp. 185–196). Vienna: NWV.Google Scholar
Saiban’in hanketsu no haki-ritsu no suii [Transitions of reversal rates of Saiban’in verdicts]. (2019, May 20). Jiji.com. www.jiji.com/jc/graphics?p=ve_soc_saiban20190520j-05-w390Google Scholar
Saiban’in 10 nen, tegotae to kadai [A decade of the Saiban’in system: Impact and concerns]. (2019, June 13). Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved from Yomidas Rekishikan Yomiuri Database Service.Google Scholar
Saiban’in keikensha kataru, “shuhigimu sutoresu” hōsōsansha to ikenkōkan = Shiga [The former Saiban’in’s voice: Stress because of the secrecy obligation exchanging opinions with the three legal professions, Shiga Prefecture]. (2018, February 28). Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved from Yomidas Rekishikan Yomiuri Database Service.Google Scholar
Saiban’in keikensha 20 nin “shikei shikkō teishi o” hōsō ni yōbō [Twenty former lay judges submit a demand for a moratorium on the execution of the death penalty]. (2014, February 18). Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved from Kikuzo II Visual.Google Scholar
Saiban’in keikenshara “kashika” iken kōkan [The former Saiban’in talk “Recordings of interogations” exchanging views]. (2015, July 17). Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved from Yomidas Rekishikan Yomiuri Database Service.Google Scholar
Saiban’in no sanka suru keiji saiban ni kan suru hōritsu [Law on the participation of lay judges in the criminal procedure]. (2009), Law no. 63.Google Scholar
Saiban’in saiban, fueru hinin sakunen hatsu no 50% koe, shinri chōkika, futanzō [Saiban’in trials: Increasing denials, last year for the first time over 50%, drawn-out trials, increasing burden]. (2018, May 22). Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved from Yomidas Rekishikan Yomiuri Database Service.Google Scholar
Saiban’in seido dōnyū 10-nen deno omona henka [Major changes of Saiban’in system for the last 10 years]. (2019, May 15). Jiji.com. www.jiji.com/jc/graphics?p=ve_soc_saiban20190515j-07-w390Google Scholar
Saiban’in seido 10 nen, jitairitsu no zōka ga kigakari da [A decade of the Saiban’in system: The number of people refusing (to serve as a Saiban-in) is a real problem]. (2019, May 19). Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved from Yomidas Rekishikan Yomiuri Database Service.Google Scholar
Shasetsu: Enzai no nigai aji o kamishimeyo [Editorial: The bitter taste of a wrongful conviction]. (1980, November 7). Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved from Yomidas Rekishikan Yomiuri Database Service.Google Scholar
Shasetsu: Enzai o unda gōin na sōsa [Editorial: Wrongful convictions caused by brute investigations]. (1984, July 12). Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved from Yomidas Rekishikan Yomiuri Database Service.Google Scholar
Shasetsu: Saiban’in seido 10 nen, shihō to shimin, kitae ate mae e [Editorial: A decade of the Saiban’in system: The judiciary and the citizens are strengthening each other but should proceed]. (2019, May 20). Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved from Kikuzo II Visual.Google Scholar
Shasetsu: Towareru jihaku izon no sōsa [Editorial: Investigations dependent on confessions is what should be questioned]. (1988, February 10). Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved from Yomidas Rekishikan Yomiuri Database Service.Google Scholar
Suo, M. (2015). Soredemo boku wa kaigi de tatakau: Dokyumento keiji shihō kaikaku [Even then I will fight in the meeting: Document on the reform of the criminal law]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Japan (Eds.). (2013). Saiban’in tō keikensha ni taisuru ankēto chōsa kekka hōkokusho, Heisei 24 nendo [Report on the results of the survey of the former lay judges (the 24th year of the Heisei era = 2012)]. www.saibanin.courts.go.jp/vcms_lf/h24_keikensya.pdfGoogle Scholar
Supreme Court of Japan(Eds.). (2017). Saiban’in saiban no jisshi jōkyo – keikensha no koe mo o shirase shimasu [The situation of the implementation of the Saiban’in trials: Informing about the former lay judges’ voices too]. www.saibanin.courts.go.jp/vcms_lf/h28_jissi_matome.pdfGoogle Scholar
Supreme Court of Japan(Eds.). (2018). Saiban’in saiban no jisshi jōkyo ni tsuite (seido shikkō~Heisei 30 nen 3 gatsu matsu・sokuhō) [Report on the results of the implementation of the Saiban’in trials (from the start of the implementation until March 2018)]. www.saibanin.courts.go.jp/vcms_lf/h30_3_saibaninsokuhou.pdfGoogle Scholar
Supreme Court of Japan(Eds.). (2019). Saiban’in saiban no jisshi jōkyo ni tsuite (seido shikkō~Reiwa gannen 5 gatsumatsu・sokuhō) [Report on the results of the implementation of the Saiban’in trials (from the start of the implementation until the end of May 2019)]. www.saibanin.courts.go.jp/vcms_lf/r1_5_saibaninsokuhou.pdfGoogle Scholar
Supreme Court of Japan, General Secretariat. (2019). Saiban’in seido 10 nen no sōkatsu hōkokusho [Summary report of one decade of the Saiban’in system]. www.saibanin.courts.go.jp/vc-files/saibanin/file/r1_diagram.pdfGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, M. (2013). Saiban’in no atama no naka: 14 nin no hajimete monogatari [Inside the heads of the jurors: The unique story of 14 people]. Tokyo: Gendai jibunsha.Google Scholar
Tanji, M. (2007). Myth, protest and struggle in Okinawa. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, A. de (2003). Democracy in America. Translated by Reeve, Henry. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange. (Originally published, New York: Adlard and Saunders, 1838.)Google Scholar
Too close to the death penalty. (2010, November 20). Japan Times. www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2010/11/20/editorials/too-close-to-the-death-penalty/#.XbBDUC2B3_QGoogle Scholar
Tritten, T. J., & Sumida, C. (2013, March 31). Sailors sentenced for gang-rape in case that sparked curfew. Stars and Stripes. www.stripes.comGoogle Scholar
Vanoverbeke, D. (2015). Juries in the Japanese legal system: The continuing struggle for citizen participation and democracy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., Fukurai, H., & Maruta, T. (2015). Japan and civil jury trials: The convergence of forces. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Yanase, N. (2016). Deliberative democracy and the Japanese Saiban’in (lay judge) trial system. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 3, 327–349.Google Scholar
Yōgisha no jinken, tsuyomaru hairyo, kōryū kyakka ritsu 2000 nen no 10 baichō [The human rights of the accused: Increasing attention, the rejection of the request for detention 10 times higher than in 2000]. (2018, August 26). Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved from Yomidas Rekishikan Yomiuri Database Service.Google Scholar

References

Ahn, K., & Han, I. (2005). Baeshimjewa shimineui sabeobchamyeo 배심제와 시민의 사법참여 [Jury system and civil participation in law]. Seoul: Jip-mun dang.Google Scholar
Beobwon haengjeongcheo 법원 행정처 [National Court Administration (S. Kor.)]. (2018). Kukminchamyeojaepan gyeolgwa bunseok 국민참여재판 결과 분석 [An analysis of results of citizen participation trials].Google Scholar
Chesterman, M., Chan, J., & Hampton, S. (2001). Managing prejudicial publicity: An empirical study of criminal jury trials in New South Wales. Sydney: Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Daebeobwon Pangyeol 대법원 판결 [Supreme Court of Korea Decision] 2009 Do14065, decided March 25, 2010.Google Scholar
Daebeobwon Pangyeol 대법원 판결 [Supreme Court of Korea Decision] 2010Do4450, decided May 3, 2011.Google Scholar
Daehanminkuk Hunbeob 대한민국 헌법 [Constitution of the Republic of Korea] (1987).Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T., Hannaford-Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., Waters, N. L., Munsterman, G. T., Schwab, S. J., & Wells, M. T. (2005). Judge–jury agreement in criminal cases: A partial replication of Kalven and Zeisel’s The American Jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1), 171–206.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Brewer, N., Clough, J., Horan, J., Ogloff, J. R. P., Tait, D., & Pratley, J. (2008). Practices, policies and procedures that influence juror satisfaction in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
Han, I. (2010). Sabeob minjoohwa gwajeonggwa kukminjaepaneui taedong: yeoksajeok euimi 사법 민주화 과정과 국민재판의 태동: 역사적 의미 [The process of judicial democratization and the birth of trial by citizens: The historical meanings]. In Han, I & Han, S (Eds.), Kukmineui sabeobchamyeo 국민의 사법참여 [Citizen participation in law] (pp. 37–45). Seoul: Kyungin.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., Fukurai, H., Kutnjak Ivković, S., & Park, J. (2017). Global juries: A plan for research. In Kovera, M. B. (Ed.), The psychology of juries. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Google Scholar
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Trial complexity: A field investigation of its meaning and its effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 29–51.Google Scholar
Hong, S. (2018). Kukminchamyeojaepanehseo baeshimwon pangyeoleui bangshikgwa hyoryeokeui baramjikhan gaeseon bangan 국민참여재판에서 배심원 판결의 방식과 효력의 바람직한 개선 방안 [A study on the way of decision making of the jury and the effect of the verdict of participatory trial]. Wonkwang Beobhak 원광 법학, 34, 155–177.Google Scholar
Hwang, B.-D. (2010). Baeshimjaepan shihangeui munjejeomgwa daechaek 배심재판 시행의 문제점과 대책 [Problems and solutions for implementing the jury trials]. Hanyang Beobhak 한양 법학, 21(2), 33.Google Scholar
Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Kim, D.-S. (2018). Kukminchamyeojaepan baeshimwon pyeonggyuleui hyoryeokeh daehan gochal 국민참여재판 배심원 평결의 효력에 대한 고찰 [A study on the effect of jury verdict in the citizen participation trial]. Beobhaknonchong 법학논총, 40, 41–60.Google Scholar
Kim, S., Park, J., Park, K., & Eom, J.-S. (2013). Judge–jury agreement in criminal cases: The first three years of the Korean jury system. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10, 35–53.Google Scholar
Kukmin sabeob chamyeo weewonhoi 국민사법참여위원회 [Committee for Citizen Participation in Law]. (2013). Kukmin chamyeojaepaneui choijong hyeongtae gyeoljeongeul weehan cheongmunhoi gyeolgwa bogo 국민 참여재판의 최종 형태 결정을 위한 청문회 결과 보고 [Outcome report of hearings for determining the final form of civil participation trial]. Seoul: Supreme Court of Korea.Google Scholar
Kukmineui hyeongsajaepan chamyeoeh gwanhan beobryul 국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률 [Act for Civil Participation in Criminal Trials (S. Kor.)] (2007), Korean Government Code 8495.Google Scholar
Kukmineui hyeongsajaepan chamyeoeh gwanhan beobryul 국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률 [Act for Civil Participation in Criminal Trials (S. Kor.)] (2017), Korean Government Code 14839, Amendment of Other Laws.Google Scholar
Kwak, D. (2018). Kukminchamyeojaepan hwalseonghwareul weehan jaepanshilmoo jeokjeonghwa bangan 국민참여재판 활성화를 위한 재판실무 적정화 방안 [A plan to optimize trial practice for the purpose of vitalizing citizen participation trial] [Paper presentation]. 2018 Conference on Citizen Participation Trials, Supreme Court of Korea.Google Scholar
Lee, I.-G. (2017). Kukminchamyeojaepaneui gaejeongbeobryulaneh gwanhan ilgo 국민참여재판의 개정법률안에 관한 일고 [A brief thought on the revised act of Korean jury trial system]. Beobhakyeongoo 법학연구, 17, 245–278 [published by the Korean Law Association].Google Scholar
Lee, J. S. (2016). Transplanting jury trials in South Korean legal soils: Comparative analysis with jury trials in the United States. Asian Journal of Criminology, 11, 111–133.Google Scholar
Pang, J.-H. (2008, February 13). Chut kukminchamyeojaepan yeolrin daegujibeob gaboni 첫 국민참여재판 열린 대구지법 가보니 [Visiting Daegu District Courthouse in which the first citizen participation trial was held]. www.mk.co.kr/news/print/2008/78148Google Scholar
Park, J. (2010). Baeshimjewa beobshimrihak 배심제와 법심리학 [The jury system and legal psychology]. Seoul: Ore.Google Scholar
Park, H.-H., Kim, M.-D., & Kim, J.-H. (2017). Kukminchamyeojaepaneh gwanhan noneui: Kukminchamyeojaepan panryereul joongshimeuro 국민참여재판에 관한 논의: 국민참여재판 판례를 중심으로 [A study on the civil participation in criminal jury trial: focused on precedent analysis]. Wonkwang Beobhak 원광 법학, 33, 57–80.Google Scholar
Song, O. (2018). Kukminchamyeojaepaneui hyunhwanggwa gwaje 국민참여재판의 현황과 과제 [The status and the future tasks of citizen participation trials] [Paper presentation]. 2018 Conference on Citizen Participation Trials, Supreme Court of Korea.Google Scholar
Tak, H., & Choi, S. (2011). Kukmineui hyungsajaepanchamyeo pyungga yeongooreul joongshimeurohan hyungsajeongchaekgwa sabeobjedo yeongoo 국민의 형사재판참여 평가 연구를 중심으로한 형사정책과 사법제도 연구 [Studies on the criminal justice policies and judicial systems with a focus on evaluation research on civil participation in criminal trials]. Seoul: Korean Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
Teukjeongbeomjoi Gajoongcheobeol deungeh gwanhan beobryul 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 [Act on Aggravated Punishment of Particular Crimes (S. Kor.)] (2010), Korean Government Code 10210.Google Scholar
Vidmar, N. (2000). World jury systems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

References

Belloch Julbe, J. A. (2000). La ley del jurado [The jury law]. Revista Vasca de Derecho Procesal y Arbitraje, 12, 323–333.Google Scholar
Bermúdez Requena, J. M. (1998). La objeción de conciencia y el jurado [Conscientious objection and the jury]. Actualidad Penal, 27, 489–498.Google Scholar
Blom-Cooper, L. (2019). Unreasoned verdict: The jury’s out. Oxford: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Burgos Ladrón de Guevara, J. (1997). La institución del jurado en España: Delimitación constitucional y legal [The institution of the jury in Spain: Constitutional and legal limits]. Justicia, 3–4, 1127–1140.Google Scholar
Campaner Muñoz, J. (2019). Publicidad y secreto del proceso penal en la sociedad de la información [Publicity and secrecy of criminal proceedings in the information society]. Madrid: Dykinson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cano Barrero, J. (2007). La ley del jurado: Jurisprudencia comentada. Diez años de la aplicción de la ley del jurado [The Jury Law: Annotated jurisprudence. Ten years of the application of the Jury Law]. Cizur Menor, Spain: Aranzadi.Google Scholar
Casanovas Romeu, P. (1997). Pragmática de las decisiones judiciales: Diferencias de razonamiento y lenguaje ante el jurado [Pragmatics of judicial decisions: Differences in reasoning and language before the jury]. In Bayo Delgado, J (Ed.), Lenguaje judicial [Legal language] (pp. 109–142). Madrid: Consejo General del Poder Judicial.Google Scholar
Casanovas Romeu, P.(1999). Intervención de las partes en el proceso de selección y designación de los jurados: Atención a los criterios de decisión de los candidatos; estrategias de comunicación [Involvement of the parties in the process of selection and appointment of jurors: Attention to the criteria for deciding on candidates; communication strategies]. In Ministerio de Justicia (Ed.), Estudios jurídicos: Cuerpo de secretarios judiciales V-1999 [Legal studies: The group of court clerks V-1999] (pp. 383–400). Madrid: Centro de Estudios de la Administración de Justicia.Google Scholar
Coen, M., & Doak, J. (2017). Embedding explained jury verdicts in the English criminal trial. Legal Studies, 37, 786–806.Google Scholar
Consejo General del Poder Judicial [General Council of the Judiciary Branch (Spain)] reports. (1998, 1999, & 2015). www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Temas/Estadistica-Judicial/Estadistica-por-temas/Actividad-de-los-organos-judicialesGoogle Scholar
Constitución Española, aprobada por las Cortes el 31 de octubre de 1978 [Spanish Constitution, approved by the Courts on October 31, 1978]. www.congreso.es/constitucion/ficheros/c78/cons_ingl.pdfGoogle Scholar
Daly, T. (2010). An endangered species? The future of the Irish criminal jury system in light of Taxquet v. Belgium. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 20, 34–43.Google Scholar
De la Cuadra, B. (2003, March 15). El Tribunal Supremo ordena que un nuevo jurado sentencie sobre la muerte de Rocío Wanninkhof [Supreme Court orders new jury to rule on Rocio Wanninkhof’s death]. El País. https://elpais.com/diario/2003/03/15/espana/1047682808_850215.htmlGoogle Scholar
De Paul Velasco, P. (1993a). De la composición y del veredicto del jurado: Comentarios psicológicos al Anteproyecto de Ley del Jurado [Of the composition and verdict of the jury: Psychological comments on the Jury Law’s draft bill]. Jueces para la democracia, 20, 84–86.Google Scholar
De Paul Velasco, P.(1993b). Factores extralegales que influyen en la toma de decisiones de los miembros del jurado [Extra-legal factors influencing jury members’ decision-making]. Cuadernos de Política Criminal, 50, 657–666.Google Scholar
De Vega Ruiz, J. A. (1989). El jurado y el juez ordinario y predeterminado por la ley [The jury and the ordinary judge, predetermined by law]. La Ley, 3, 899–908.Google Scholar
Devine, D. J., Olafson, K. M., Jarvis, L. L., Bott, J. P., Clayton, L. D., & Wolfe, J. (2004). Explaining jury verdicts: Is leniency bias for real? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2069–2098.Google Scholar
Domingo Monforte, J., Sala Paños, D., Gil Gimeno, C., & Calvo Pellicer, S. (2018). Triada y triage de cuestiones problemáticas en el juicio con tribunal de jurado [Triad and triage of problematic issues in the jury trial]. Diario La Ley, 9142. http://diariolaley.laley.esGoogle Scholar
Esparza Leibar, I. (1995). El jurado en los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica: Problemática general. El procedimiento de selección [The jury in the United States of America: General issues. The selection process]. Revista de Derecho Procesal, 1, 295–311.Google Scholar
Esparza Leibar, I.(2000). Algunas cuestiones sobre el veredicto en la ley del jurado [Some questions about the verdict in jury law]. Revista Tribunales de Justicia, 4, 451–460.Google Scholar
Fairén Guillén, V. (1997). Sobre la “proposición no de ley” para la reforma de la Ley orgánica del Tribunal del Jurado, de 11 de marzo de 1997 [On the “non-legislative proposal” (bill draft) for the reform of the Organic Law on the Jury Court, of March 11, 1997]. Revista de Derecho Procesal, 3, 695–744.Google Scholar
Ferrer Ortiz, J. (2003). La objeción de conciencia al jurado [Conscientious objection to the jury]. Revista General de Derecho Canónico y Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado, 2. www.iustel.comGoogle Scholar
Fidalgo Gallardo, C. (1998). La intimidación de los jurados [The intimidation of jurors]. Justicia, 1–2, 171–276.Google Scholar
Fiscalía General del Estado [General Attorney’s Government Office (Spain)] reports. (2019). www.fiscal.es/documentaciónGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, G. (1996). Las víctimas ante el jurado [The victims before the jury]. (Spanish edition). Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch. (Original work, With Justice for Some: Victims’ Rights in Criminal Trials, published 1995).Google Scholar
Forest, E. (1997). ¿Proceso al jurado?: conversaciones con Miguel Castells [Jury trial: conversations with Miguel Castells]. Hondarribia, Spain: Hiru D. L.Google Scholar
Garcimartín Montero, R. (2018). La inclusion de las personas con discapacidad en el Tribunal del Jurado: Un análisis a la luz de la reforma de la LO 1/2017, de 13 de diciembre [The inclusion of people with disabilities in the Jury Court: An analysis in the light of the reform of LO 1/2017 of December 13]. San Sebastián: Instituto Vasco de Derecho Procesal.Google Scholar
Gimeno Sendra, V. (2015). Manual de derecho procesal penal [Handbook of criminal procedure law]. Madrid: Castillo de Luna Ediciones Jurídicas.Google Scholar
Gleadow, C. (2000). History of trial by jury in the Spanish legal system. Lewinston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Gómez Colomer, J. L. (1996). El proceso penal especial ante el tribunal del jurado [The special criminal procedure before the jury court]. Madrid, Spain: Civitas.Google Scholar
Grande, E. (2016). Rumba justice and the Spanish jury trial. In Ross, J. E. & Thaman, S. C. (Eds.), Comparative criminal procedure (pp. 365–395). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Groscup, J. L. (2019). The impact of legally relevant media exposure on criminal juror decision-making. In Najdowski, C. J. & Stevenson, M. C. (Eds.), Criminal juries in the 21st century (pp. 133–154). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P. (2002). US jury reform: The active jury and the adversarial ideal. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 21, 85–97.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P.(2012). What difference does a jury make? Yonsei Law Journal, 3, 37–54.Google Scholar
Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1986). La institución del jurado en los Estados Unidos: Sus intimidades [The institution of the jury in the United States: Its intimacies]. (Spanish edition.) Madrid: Civitas. (Original work, Inside the Jury, published 1983.)Google Scholar
Hendler, E. S. (2006). El juicio por jurados: Significados, genealogías, incógnitas [The trial by jury: Significance, genealogies, unknowns]. Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto.Google Scholar
Hernández, J. A. (2000, February 4). El escándalo del caso Otegi [The scandal of the Otegi case]. El País. https://elpais.com/diario/2000/02/04/sociedad/949618802_850215.htmlGoogle Scholar
Igartúa Salaverria, J. (1998). El jurado y la motivación de su veredicto (A propósito de la STS sobre el “caso Otegi”) [The jury and the reasons for its verdict (About STS on the “Otegi case”)]. Revista vasca de Administración Pública, 51, 215–235.Google Scholar
Igartúa Salaverria, J.(2004). El caso Wanninkhof ¿un tiro de gracia al jurado? [The Wanninkhof case: A coup de grace to the jury?] Jueces para la democracia, 50, 63–74.Google Scholar
Jimeno-Bulnes, M. (1993). El principio de publicidad en el sumario [The principle of publicity in pretrial instruction]. Justicia, 3–4, 645–717.Google Scholar
Jimeno-Bulnes, M.(2001). La institución del jurado en el Reino Unido y el régimen especial de Irlanda del Norte [The institution of the jury in the United Kingdom and the special regime in Northern Ireland]. Revista de Derecho Procesal, 1–3, 343–404.Google Scholar
Jimeno-Bulnes, M.(2004). Lay participation in Spain: The jury system. International Criminal Justice Review, 14, 164–185.Google Scholar
Jimeno-Bulnes, M.(2007). A different story line for 12 Angry Men: Verdicts reached by majority rule – The Spanish perspective. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 82, 759–775.Google Scholar
Jimeno-Bulnes, M.(2011). Jury selection and jury trial in Spain: Between theory and practice. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 86, 585–611.Google Scholar
Jimeno-Bulnes, M.(2013). American criminal procedure in a European context. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 21, 409–459.Google Scholar
Jimeno-Bulnes, M.(2014). Un ejemplo emblemático de juicio por Jurado en España: “El caso Gürtel” [An emblematic example of trial by jury in Spain: “The Gürtel case”]. Revista Vasca de Derecho Procesal y Arbitraje, 26, 1–26.Google Scholar
Jimeno-Bulnes, M., & Hans, V. P. (2016). Legal interpreter for the jury: Role of the clerk of the court in Spain. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 6, 197–615.Google Scholar
Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Kutnjak Ivković, S. (2003). An inside view: Professional judges’ and lay judges’ support for mixed tribunals. Law & Policy, 25, 93–122.Google Scholar
Kutnjak Ivković, S.(2015). Ears of the deaf: The theory and reality of lay judges in mixed tribunals. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 90, 1031–1067.Google Scholar
Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, Real Decreto de 14 de septiembre de 1882 [Criminal Procedure Act (Spain), Royal Decree, of September 14, 1882]. English version updated October 6, 2015. www.mjusticia.gob.es/cs/Satellite/Portal/es/servicios-ciudadano/documentacion-publicaciones/publicaciones/traducciones-derecho-espanolGoogle Scholar
Ley Orgánica 5/1995, de 22 de mayo, del Tribunal del Jurado [Organic Law 5/1995, of May 22, on the Jury (Spain)]. www.mjusticia.gob.es/cs/Satellite/Portal/es/servicios-ciudadano/documentacion-publicaciones/publicaciones/traducciones-derecho-espanolGoogle Scholar
Lorca Navarrete, A. M. (2003). La deliberación del Jurado en la declaración del hecho probado y proclamación de la culpabilidad e inculpabilidad del acusado en la doctrina y en la reciente jurisprudencia [The deliberation of the jury in declaring the proven facts and proclaiming the guilt or innocence of the accused in doctrine and recent jurisprudence]. La Ley, 2, 1413–1420.Google Scholar
Lorca Navarrete, A. M.(2005). Décimo aniversario de la ley del jurado (1995–2005) [Tenth anniversary of the Jury Act (1995–2005)]. Revista Vasca de Derecho Procesal y Arbitraje, 17, 1–130.Google Scholar
Lorca Navarrete, A. M.(2012). El veredicto del jurado [The jury’s verdict]. San Sebastián: Instituto Vasco de Derecho Procesal.Google Scholar
Marder, N. S. (1987). Gender dynamics and jury deliberations. Yale Law Journal, 96, 593–612.Google Scholar
Marder, N. S.(2005). The jury process. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Marder, N. S.(2006). Bringing jury instructions into the twenty-first century. Notre Dame Law Review, 81, 449–512.Google Scholar
Marder, N. S.(2009). From “practical obscurity” to web disclosure: A new understanding of public information. Syracuse Law Review, 59, 441–457.Google Scholar
Marder, N. S.(2012). The conundrum of cameras in the courtroom. Arizona State Law Journal, 44, 1489–1574.Google Scholar
Marder, N. S. (2015). Juror bias, voir dire, and the judge–jury relationship. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 90, 927–956.Google Scholar
Martín Ostos, J. (1990). Jurado y escabinado (participación popular en la administración de justicia) [Jury and mixed court (popular participation in the administration of justice)]. Madrid: Dykinson & Instituto Vasco de Derecho Procesal.Google Scholar
Martín Pallín, J. A. (2006). La ley del jurado en su X aniversario [The law of the jury on its tenth anniversary]. Cizur Menor, Spain: Aranzadi.Google Scholar
Martínez Torrón, J. (1996). Ley del jurado y objeción de conciencia [The law of the jury and conscientious objection]. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 48, 119–143.Google Scholar
Montero Aroca, J. (1998). Ambito del recurso de casación en el proceso especial ante el tribunal del jurado (con ocasión de la STS, Sala 2ª, de 24 de febrero de 1998) [Scope of the appeal in the special proceedings before the jury (on the occasion of the STS, 2nd Chamber, February 24, 1998)]. Revista de Tribunales de Justicia, 8–9, 831–841.Google Scholar
Pedraz Penalva, E. (1992). Motivación y control de las resoluciones jurisdiccionales [Grounds for and review of judicial decisions]. Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas (El Salvador), 1, 31–125.Google Scholar
Pérez Gil, J. (2003). Private interests seeking punishment: Prosecution brought by private individuals and groups in Spain. Law & Policy, 25, 151–171.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cruz Martín, A. J. (1995). Anotaciones a la competencia y composición del tribunal del jurado: Especial consideración de los arts.1 y 5 de la LO 5/1995 del Tribunal del Jurado indatada [Annotations to the competence and composition of the jury court: Special consideration of articles 1 and 5 of the LO 5/1995 of the “non-dated” Jury Court]. Justicia, 3–4, 63–97.Google Scholar
Porterie, S., & Romano, A. (2018). El poder del Jurado: Descubriendo el juicio por jurados en la Provincia de Buenos Aires [The power of the jury: Discovering the jury trial in the Province of Buenos Aires]. Buenos Aires: INECIP.Google Scholar
Proposición no de Ley presentada por el Grupo Parlamentario Popular en el Congreso, de reforma de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal del Jurado, Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales (BOCG) de 24 de marzo de 1997, Congreso de los Diputados, VI Legislatura, Serie D, Núm. 118, p. 8 [Draft law num. 162/000110 (Spain). BOCG March 24, 1997. Congress. VI legislative period. Series D, num. 118, 8]. www.congreso.es/portal/page/portal/Congreso/Congreso/IniciativasGoogle Scholar
Ramos Méndez, F. (1997). La implantación del jurado en el sistema del enjuiciamiento criminal español [The implementation of the jury in the Spanish criminal trial system]. In Gómez Colomer, J. L. & González Cussac, J. L. (Eds.), La reforma de la justicia penal. Estudios en homenaje al Prof. Klaus Tiedemann [Criminal justice reform. Studies in homage to Prof. Klaus Tiedemann] (pp. 337–348). Castellón, Spain: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Ríos Patio, G., & Espinoza Bonifaz, A. R. (2018). La conveniencia de establecer el sistema de jurado en la justicia penal de los países periféricos hispano americanos [The convenience of establishing the jury system in the criminal justice of the peripheral Hispanic American countries]. Revista Vasca de Derecho Procesal y Arbitraje, 30, 273–286.Google Scholar
Sanjurjo Rebollo, B. (1998). Jurados anónimos: Caso de Estados Unidos c. Bowles (Minnesota 1995) [Anonymous jurors: United States v. Bowles (Minnesota 1995)]. Revista de Derecho Procesal, 1, 147–162.Google Scholar
Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial (SAP) de A Coruña de 11 de noviembre de 2015, JUR 2015/289211 [Provincial Court of A Coruña (Spain), Judgment JUR 205/289211 of November 11, 2015]. https://insignis.aranzadidigital-esGoogle Scholar
Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial (SAP) de Guipúzcoa de 10 de marzo de 1997, JUR 1999/211124 [Provincial Court of Guipúzcoa (Spain), Judgment JUR 1999/211124 of March 10, 1997]. https://insignis.aranzadidigital-esGoogle Scholar
Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial (SAP) de León de 10 de marzo de 2016, JUR 2016/50968 [Provincial Court of León (Spain), Judgment JUR 2016/50968 of March 10, 2016]. https://insignis.aranzadidigital-esGoogle Scholar
Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial (SAP) de Málaga de 25 de septiembre de 2001, ARP 2002/290 [Provincial Court of Málaga (Spain), Judgment ARP 2002/290 of September 25, 2001]. https://insignis.aranzadidigital-esGoogle Scholar
Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional (STC) 47/1983, de 31 de mayo [Constitutional Court (Spain), Judgment num. 47/1983 of May 31, 1983]. http://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/HJ/es/Resolucion/Show/175Google Scholar
Sentencia del Tribunal Superior de Justicia (STSJ) de Andalucía en Granada de 1 de febrero de 2002, ARP 2002/50 [High Court of Justice of Andalusia in Granada (Spain), Judgment ARP 2002/50 of February 1, 2002]. https://insignis.aranzadidigital-esGoogle Scholar
Sentencia del Tribunal Superior de Justicia (STSJ) del País Vasco de 26 de junio de 1997, ARP 1998/3079 [High Court of Justice of the Basque Country, Judgment ARP 1998/3079 of June 26, 1997]. https://insignis.aranzadidigital-esGoogle Scholar
Sentencia del Tribunal Superior de Justicia (STSJ) de Comunidad Valenciana de 30 de enero de 2012, ARP 2012/81 [High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community, Judgment ARP 2012/81 of January 30, 2012]. https://insignis.aranzadidigital-esGoogle Scholar
Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo (STS) 364/1998, de 11 de marzo [Supreme Court (Spain), Judgment num. 364/1998 of March 11, 1998]. www.poderjudicial.es/search/index.jspGoogle Scholar
Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo (STS) 279/2003, de 12 de marzo [Supreme Court (Spain), Judgment num. 279/2003 of March 12, 2003]. www.poderjudicial.es/search/index.jspGoogle Scholar
Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo (STS) 373/2013, de 23 de abril [Supreme Court (Spain), Judgment num. 373/2013 of April 23, 2013]. www.poderjudicial.es/search/index.jspGoogle Scholar
Serra Domínguez, M. (2001). El jurado: Éxito o fracaso [The jury: Success or failure]. In Picó i Junoy, J & Abel Lluch, X (Eds.), Problemas actuales de la justicia penal [Current criminal justice issues] (pp. 59–66). Barcelona: Bosch.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1991). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors’ information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 220–228.Google Scholar
Taxquet v. Belgium, Judgment num. 926/05 (November 16, 2010). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001–101739Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C. (1998). Spain returns to trial by jury. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 21, 241–537.Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C.(2008). Comparative criminal procedure: A casebook approach. 2nd ed. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C.(2011). Should criminal juries give reasons for their verdicts? The Spanish experience and the implications of the European Court of Human Rights Decision in Taxquet v. Belgium. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 86, 613–668.Google Scholar
Toharia, J. J. (1985). Los españoles ante el juicio con jurado [Spaniards at the jury trial]. Documentación Jurídica, 45–46, 285–297.Google Scholar
Toharia, J. J.(1994). Actitudes de los españoles ante la Administración de Justicia: Opiniones y aptitudes [Attitudes of Spaniards toward the administration of justice: Opinions and aptitudes]. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.Google Scholar
Valero Romero, M. A. (2018). La argumentación lingüística en los juicios con Jurado [Linguistic argumentation in jury trials]. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.Google Scholar
Vidmar, N. (1999). Foreword. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 1–5.Google Scholar
Villagómez Cebrián, M. (1998). La “apelación” de la sentencia en el juicio con jurado: Estudio del recurso establecido por la L.O. 5/1995 del Tribunal del Jurado [The “appeal” of the sentence in the jury trial: Study of the appeal established by the Jury Court Law 5/1995]. Bologna, Italy: Real Colegio de España.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×