The Case for a Hybrid Jury in Europe

doi:10.1017/9781108669290.015

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

John D. Jackson

Edited by

Sanja Kutnjak Ivković ,

Shari Seidman Diamond ,

Valerie P. Hans and

Nancy S. Marder

Show author details

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

Book contents

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 jury Europe common law civil law convergence of procedural systems hybrid jury

Type: Chapter
Information: Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts
A Global Perspective
, pp. 304 - 322

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108669290.015 [Opens in a new window]

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-1.3445059 Google 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=2782413 Google 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

Book contents

15 - The Case for a Hybrid Jury in Europe

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive