The institution of lay participation in criminal matters has undergone dramatic changes on the world scene during the twentieth century. Today, the common law jury trial flourishes only in the United States. Critics contend that overreliance on the lay jury as the sole fact finder hinders rather than facilitates the prompt and fair adjudication of guilt. This article examines the lay participation systems in some major countries and compares their characteristics with that of our own.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abraham, H. (1968). The judicial process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
Abramson, J. (1994). We, the jury. New York, NY: Basic Books.
3.
Adler, S. J. (1994). The jury: Trial and error in the American courtroom. New York, NY: Random House.
4.
Alschuler, A. (1995). Our faltering jury. The Law School Record, 41, 3-7.
5.
Alschuler, A. W. , & Deiss, A. G. (1994). A brief history of criminal jury in the United States. University of Chicago Law Review, 61, 867-928.
6.
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).
7.
Barrett, E. F. (1962). The adversary system and the ethics of adversary. Notre Dame Law Review, 37, 479-488.
8.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
9.
Berman, H. J. , & Quigley, J. B., Jr. (1969). Basic laws on the structure of the Soviet state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Chen, J. X. (1990). On the reform of the people's assessors' system. Forums of Political Science and Law, 6, 30-35.
11.
Chen, Y. K. , & Li, C. H. (1993). Characteristics of our country's trial system. Forum of Political Science and Law, 3, 46-50.
12.
Dubber, M. D. (1995). The German jury and the metaphysical Volk: From romantic idealism to Nazi ideology. American Journal of Comparative Law, 43, 227-271.
13.
Dunbar, N. C. H. (1968). The French criminal jury. University of Tasmania Law Review, 3, 68-81.
14.
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
15.
Ehrmann, H. W. (1976). Comparative legal cultures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
16.
Emmins, C. J. (1988). A practical approach to criminal procedure. London, England:'Blackstone Press Limited.
17.
Emmins, C. J. , & Scanlan, G. (1988). A guide to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. London, England: Blackstone Press Limited.
18.
Evans, K. (1983). Advocacy at the bar. London, England: Financial Training.
19.
Forsyth, W. (1876). History of trial byjury. Toronto, Canada: R. Carswell.
20.
Forsyth, W. (1879). Hortensius: An historical essay on the office and duties of an advocate. London, England: John Murray.
21.
Frankel, M. E. (1975). The search for truth: An umpireal view. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 123, 1031-1059.
22.
Frase, R. S. (1990). Comparative criminal justice as a guide to American law reform: How do the French do it, how can we find out, and why should we care?California Law Review, 78, 539-683.
23.
Frase, R. S. , & Weigend, T. (1995). German criminal justice as a guide to American law reform: Similar problems, better solutions?Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 18, 317-424.
24.
Freccero, S. P. (1994). An introduction to the new Italian criminal procedure. American Journal of Criminal Law, 21, 345-383.
25.
Glendon, M. A. , Gordon, M. W., & Osakwe, C. (1994). Comparative legal traditions. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
26.
Graham, M. (1983). Tightening the reins ofjustice in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
27.
Green, T. A. (1985). Verdict according to conscience. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Haddon, P. A. (1994). Rethinking the jury. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 3, 29-106.
29.
Hans, V. P. , & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
30.
Hughes, G. (1984). English criminal justice: Is it better than ours?Arizona Law Review, 26, 507-614.
31.
Jackson, R. M. (1967). The machinery of Justice in England. Cambridge, England: At the University Press.
32.
Jescheck, H. H. (1970). Principle of German criminal procedure in comparison with American law. Virginia Law Review, 56, 239-253.
33.
Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972).
34.
Jones v. National Coal Board. (1957) 2 Q.B. (Court of Appeal).
35.
Kalven, H. , & Zeisel, H. (1971). The American jury. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
36.
LaFave, W. R. , & Israel, J. H. (1992). Criminalprocedure. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
37.
Langbein, J. H. (1987). The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution. In A. P. Schioppa (Ed.), The trialjury in England, France, Germany: 1700-1900 (pp. 13-29). Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.
38.
Levine, J. P. (1996). The virtue of jury service as civic education. ACJS Today, 16(3), pp. 1-1, 3-3, 9-9.
39.
Mansnerus, L. (1995, November 4). Under fire, jury system faces overhaul. The New York Times, p. 9-9.
40.
Mawer, R. K. (1961). Juries and assessors in criminal trials in some Commonwealth countries: A preliminary survey. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 10, 892-898.
41.
Merryman, J. H. (1985). 7he civil law tradition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
42.
Pizzi, W. T. , & Marafioti, L. (1992). The new Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: The difficulties of building an adversarial trial system on a civil law foundation. Yale Journal of International Law, 17, 1-40.
43.
Plotkin, S. R. (1994). The jury trial in Russia. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2, 1-22.
44.
Power v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991).
45.
Regina v. Lawrence, 73 Crim. App. 1, 5 (1981).
46.
Ren, J. X. (1993, March 21). Working report of the People's Supreme Court at the First Plenary Meeting of the Eighth National People's Congress. People's Daily, p. 2-2.
47.
Rothwax, H. (1996). Guilty: The collapse of criminaljustice. New York, NY: Random House.
48.
Schnapper, B. (1987). Le jury franqais aux XIX et XXéme siecles. In A. P. Schioppa (Ed.), The trialjury in England, France, Germany: 1700-1900 (pp. 165-239). Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.
49.
Sheehan, A. V. (1975). Criminal procedure in Scotland and France. Edinburgh, Scotland: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
50.
Steffen, T. L. (1988). Truth as second fiddle: Reevaluating the place of truth in the adversary trial ensemble. Utah Law Review, 4, 799-845.
51.
Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965).
52.
Thaman, S. C. (1995). The resurrection of trial by jury in Russia. Stanford Journal of International Law, 31, 61-274.
53.
United States v. Collamore, 868 F. 2d 24 (1st Cir. 1989).
54.
United States v. Spock, 416 F. 2d 165 (1st Cir. 1969).
55.
Van Kessel, G. (1992). Adversary excesses in the American criminal trial. Notre Dame Law Review, 67, 403-551.
56.
Weigend, T. (1983). Sentencing in West Germany. Maryland Law Review, 42, 37-89.
57.
West, A. , Desdevises, Y., Fenet, A., Gaurier D., & Heussaff, M. C. (1993). The French legal system. London, England: Fouruate Publishing.
58.
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).
59.
Wolchover, D. (1989, November). Should judges sum up on the facts?Criminal Law Review, pp. 781-792.
60.
Wolfe, N. (1983). Participation in courts: American jurors and German lay judges. In I. Barak-Glantz & E. Johnson (Eds.), Comparative criminology (pp. 121-134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
61.
Wolfe, N. (1996). An alternative form of lay participation in criminal adjudication: Lay judge courts in the Federal Republic of Germany. In C. B. Fields & R. H. Moore, Jr. (Eds.), Comparative criminaljustice (pp. 321-343). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
62.
Zander, M. (1989). A matter ofjustice. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
63.
Zhang, Z. P. , & Wu, L. (1982). Criminal procedure. Beijing, China: Masses Publishing Company.
64.
Zweigert, K. , & Kötz, H. (1987). Introduction to comparative law. Oxford, NY: Clarendon Press.
