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-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:47:20.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - The Case for a Hybrid Jury in Europe

from Part IV - Global Perspectives on Lay Participation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2021

By
John D. Jackson
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

This chapter traces the decline of the traditional jury across the criminal justice systems in Europe and argues the case for a hybrid jury to take its place. The chapter contrasts common-law and civil-law systems and considers why the jury has been a remarkably enduring institution across common-law systems but has been less successful in being transplanted onto continental European soil. The chapter also identifies certain pressures in common-law systems that have led to calls for the jury to be made more accountable. The chapter then argues that, against the background of a growing convergence between procedural systems, a case can be made for adopting a modern hybrid jury across Europe that retains the key feature of the traditional jury, namely that laypersons decide the verdict, but combines this with the need for the jury to provide some justification for its verdict.

Keywords

traditional juryEuropecommon lawcivil lawconvergence of procedural systemshybrid jury
Type
Chapter
Information
Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts
A Global Perspective
 , pp. 304 - 322
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

Arlidge, A., & Judge, I. (2014). Magna Carta uncovered. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (2014). The prosecution of organised crime: Removing the jury. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 18, 83–100.Google Scholar
Coen, M. (2014). “With cat-like tread”: Jury trial and the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 14, 107–131.Google Scholar
Coen, M., & Doak, J. (2017). Embedding explained jury verdicts in the English criminal trial. Legal Studies, 37, 786–806.Google Scholar
Coen, M., & Howlin, N. (2018). The jury speaks: Jury riders in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. American Journal of Legal History, 58, 505–534.Google Scholar
Coote, A., & Lenaghan, J. (1997). Citizens’ juries: Theory into practice. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
Damaška, M. (1973). Evidentiary barriers to conviction and two models of criminal procedure: A comparative study. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 121, 506–589.Google Scholar
Damaška, M.(1974). Structures of authority and comparative criminal procedure. Yale Law Journal, 84, 480–544.Google Scholar
Damaška, M.(1986). The faces of justice and state authority: A comparative approach to the legal process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Damaška, M.(1997). Evidence law adrift. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Damaška, M.(2007). The jury and the law of evidence: Real and imagined interconnections. Law, Probability and Risk, 5, 255–265.Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty, M. (2008). Reflections on the hybridisation of criminal procedure. In Jackson, J, Langer, M, & Tillers, P (Eds.), Crime, procedure and evidence in a comparative and international context: Essays in honour of Mirjan Damaška. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Duff, A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S., & Tadros, V. (2007). The trial on trial (3): Towards a normative theory of the criminal trial. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (1999). The Scottish criminal jury: A very peculiar institution. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 173–201.Google Scholar
Esmein, A. (1913). A history of continental criminal procedure: With special reference to France. Trans. J. Simpson. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Gallagher, C. & Ferguson, A. (2018, March 30). Belfast rape trial juror’s online comments are referred to AG. Irish Times. www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-juror-s-online-comments-are-referred-to-ag-1.3445059Google Scholar
Gorphe, F. (1937). Reforms of the jury-system in Europe: France and other continental countries. American Institute of Criminal Law & Criminology, 27, 155–168.Google Scholar
Grande, E. (2008). Dances of criminal justice: Thoughts on systemic differences and the search for truth. In Jackson, J, Langer, M, & Tillers, P (Eds.), Crime, procedure and evidence in a comparative and international context: Essays in honour of Mirjan Damaška. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Grande, E.(2016). Legal transplants and the inoculation effect: How American criminal procedure has affected continental Europe. American Journal of Comparative Law, 6, 583–618.Google Scholar
Hans, V., & Germain, C. M. (2011). The French jury at a crossroads. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 86, 737–768.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. (2006). Conceptions of the trial in inquisitorial and adversarial procedure. In Duff, A, Farmer, L, Marshall, S, & Tadros, V (Eds.), The trial on trial (2): Judgment and calling to account. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D. (2002a). Modes of trial: Shifting the balance towards the professional judge. Criminal Law Review, 4, 249–271.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D.(2002b). Making juries accountable. American Journal of Comparative Law, 50, 477–530.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D.(2009). Many years on in Northern Ireland: The Diplock legacy. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 60, 213–229.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D.(2016). Unbecoming jurors and unreasoned verdicts: Realising integrity in the jury room. In Dixon, D, Hunter, J, Roberts, P, & Young, S (Eds.), The integrity of criminal process: From theory into practice. Oxford: Hart/Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D., & Doran, S. (1995). Judge without jury: Diplock trials in the adversary system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D., & Kovalev, N. P. (2006). Lay adjudication and human rights in Europe. Columbia Journal of European Law, 13, 83–123.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D., & Kovalev, N. P.(2016). Lay adjudication in Europe: The rise and fall of the traditional jury. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 6. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2782413Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D., & Summers, S. J. (2012). The internationalisation of criminal evidence: Beyond the common law and civil law traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jaconelli, J. (2002). Open justice: A critique of the public trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koch, A. (2000). CJA Mittermaier and the 19th century debate about juries and mixed courts. Revue International de Droit Penal, 72, 347–353.Google Scholar
Langer, M. (2004). From legal transplants to legal translations: The globalization of plea bargaining and the Americanization thesis in criminal procedure. Harvard International Journal, 45, 1–64.Google Scholar
Langer, M.(2014). The long shadow of the adversarial and inquisitorial categories. In Dubber, M. D. & Höernle, T (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leib, E. (2008). A comparison of criminal jury decision rules in democratic countries. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 5, 629–644.Google Scholar
Lempert, R. O. (2001). Citizen participation in judicial decision making: Juries, lay judges and Japan. Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal, 1–14.Google Scholar
Leveson, B. (2015). Review of efficiency in criminal proceedings. London: Judiciary of England and Wales.Google Scholar
Lippke, R. L. (2009). The case for reasoned verdicts. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 22, 313–330.Google Scholar
Lundmark, T. (2012). Charting the divide between the common and civil law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mannheim, H. (1937). Trial by jury in modern continental law. Law Quarterly Review, 53, 99–117, 388–412.Google Scholar
Pocar, F., & Carter, L. (2013). International criminal procedure: The interface of civil law and common law legal systems. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Quinn, C. (2004). Jury bias and the European Convention on Human Rights: A well-kept secret? Criminal Law Review, 998–1014.Google Scholar
Fanning, R. v. [2016] 1 WLR 4175 (Eng.).Google Scholar
R. v. H [1995] 2 AC 596 (Eng.).Google Scholar
Mirza, R. v. [2004] 1 AC 1118 (Eng.).Google Scholar
Pope, R. v. [2013] 1 Cr App R 214 (Eng.).Google Scholar
Thompson, R v. [2011] 1 WLR 200 (Eng.).Google Scholar
Roberts, P., & Zuckerman, A. (2010). Criminal evidence. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. (2018). Post-conviction review in England and Wales: Perpetuating and rectifying miscarriages of justice. In Lennon, G, King, C, & McCartney, C (Eds.), Counter-terrorism, constitutionalism and miscarriages of justice. Oxford: Hart/Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Sander v. UK, 31 EHRR 44 (2000).Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2006). On the supposed jury-dependence of evidence law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155, 165–202.Google Scholar
Sikich, K. W. (2013). Explaining the presence of the criminal jury in democratic political systems. Doctoral dissertation, American University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Taylor, G. (2011). Jury trial in Austria. New Criminal Law Review, 14, 281–325.Google Scholar
Taxquet v. Belgium, Application No. 926/05 (January 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Taxquet v. Belgium, 54 EHRR 26 (GC) (2012).Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C. (1998). Spain returns to trial by jury. Hastings International & Comparative Law Review, 21, 241–537.Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C.(2007). The nullification of the Russian jury: Lessons for jury-inspired reform in Eurasia and beyond. Cornell International Law Journal, 40, 355–428.Google Scholar
Thaman, S. C.(2011). Should criminal juries give reasons for their verdicts? Chicago-Kent Law Review, 86, 613–668.Google Scholar
Thayer, W. B. (1898). A preliminary treatise on evidence at the common law. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. (2010). Are juries fair? London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
Thomas, C.(2013). Avoiding the perfect storm of juror contempt. Criminal Law Review, 483–503.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. (2004). Trial by jury: 50 years of change. Criminal Law Review, 119–137.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, A. de (1835/1994). Democracy in America. London: David Campbell.Google Scholar
Vidmar, N. (Ed.). (2000). World jury systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
VRP, VPC and others v. Nicaragua, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (ser. C) No. 350 (2018, March 8).Google Scholar
Weigend, T. (2003). Is the criminal process about truth?: A German perspective. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 26, 157–173.Google Scholar
Weigend, T.(2011). Should we search for the truth, and who should do it? North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 36, 389–411.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
×