Alternative Form of Lay Participation in Criminal Adjudication: Lay Judge Courts in the Federal Republic of Germany (From Comparative Criminal Justice: Traditional and Nontraditional Systems of Law and Control, P 321-343, 1996, Charles B Fields and Richter H Moore, Jr, eds. -- See NCJ-161138)

• NCJ Number: 161156
• Author(s): N T Wolfe
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 23 pages
• Sale Source: Waveland Press, Inc.
• Publication Type: Program/Project Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This examination of the lay courts of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) considers whether the mixed tribunal fulfills the traditional rationale for lay participation in criminal adjudication and whether it obviates the major criticisms of the Anglo-American trial jury system.

Abstract

In the FRG, a person charged with a petty crime is tried in a local court before a professional judge sitting alone. The defendant can, however, appeal for a rehearing by a tribunal composed of one professional judge and two lay judges. Felonies are tried before a mixed court that consists of three professional judges and two lay judges and also has authority to rehear cases from mixed-bench trials. Major felonies are tried by an extended lay judge court that consists of two professional and two lay judges. Only the most serious crimes, such as treason, are tried before a tribunal of five professional judges without the participation of lay judges. The authority, selection, and function of lay judges who serve on a mixed bench are determined by Title 4 of the Court Organization Code. The statutory mission of lay judges in the juvenile courts is reflected in the establishment of special election procedures for juvenile lay judges in the Juvenile Court Code. Continual interaction of lay judges and professionals in the courtroom throughout the trial and during deliberation allows the lay judges to monitor actions of governmental officials. The ability of lay judges to observe official actions in each step of criminal procedure far exceeds that of Anglo-American jurors, who are excluded from crucial hearings. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibits the incorporation of mixed tribunals in either the Federal or State judicial systems; at least two States (Vermont and New Jersey) have experimented with mixed tribunals. Although the critical role of jurors is emphasized in the American system, their involvement already is diminishing in numerous ways through their elimination in petty offenses, recourse to plea bargaining, or by waiver by the defendant in favor of a bench trial. A 50-item bibliography