The Myths and Truths of Trial by Jury

In our democratic reform, judicial democratization is undoubtedly much harder to achieve than political democratization. Part of the reason is that the judiciary inherently possesses a certain degree of professionalism, making it difficult for the general public to understand. Another part is that the reform of judicial democratization is fraught with value choices, making it difficult even for the legal professional community itself to form a value consensus, let alone society as a whole.

Recently, when the Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee of the Legislative Yuan reviewed the "Trial Period Draft Act for Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials" proposed by the Judicial Yuan, there were as many as five other concurrently proposed bills. The committee failed to reach any consensus on jury trial, lay participation (mixed-court), or spectator participation (kuanshen), which is a clear reflection of this difficulty. Originally, a jury trial—based on verdicts rendered by a lay jury—best reflects democratic values and highlights reform ambitions. Yet, when the Judicial Yuan considered introducing a system for citizen participation in trials, the jury system was the first to be discarded and eliminated, a fact that cannot but be blamed on various misconceptions about it.

First is the belief that a jury verdict, by having no written opinion, deprives the defendant of the opportunity to appeal. Although a jury is composed of ordinary citizens and cannot write detailed written opinions like professional judges, jury trials similarly emphasize adjudication according to law and evidence. Therefore, if a jury finds a defendant guilty, it means the prosecutor's presentation of proof persuaded the jury, and the evidence presented by the prosecutor in court forms the basis and reasoning for the jury's guilty verdict. If all the evidence presented by the prosecutor is legally insufficient to establish the defendant's guilt, yet the jury still returns a guilty verdict, this indicates that the jury did not judge according to the law, involving a legal issue. In countries that adopt the jury system, defendants are still permitted to appeal and seek relief on legal issues. Appellate reviews addressing whether there was sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict are commonplace, presenting no issue of depriving the defendant of the opportunity to appeal.

Second is the belief that in a jury system, judges do not participate in the verdict at all, and decisions are made entirely by the jury. This misconception was also reflected in a public opinion poll commissioned by the Judicial Yuan. One question in the poll asked: "If we do not adopt the citizen participation (kuanshen) system, but instead let ordinary citizens completely decide whether a defendant is guilty or not, without judges participating, do you think this would make it easier for trials to reach wrong decisions?" As a result, as high as 79.3% of the respondents answered: "Yes." This survey result has also been cited to claim that 80% of our citizens oppose the jury system. However, in a jury system, judges do not completely refrain from participating in the verdict. Rather, before the jury deliberates and decides on the trial, the judge must give appropriate jury instructions, providing the necessary legal elements and interpretations required for the jury to reach a verdict, and reminding jurors at any time of matters they should pay attention to. Based on the author's practical experience in participating in simulated jury trials, jurors do indeed deliberate earnestly in accordance with judge's instructions, and the content discussed and considered during their verdicts is consistent with that of professional judges. Whether the general public is generally capable of judging according to evidence and law without being influenced by emotional biases should be studied empirically through widespread simulated trials, rather than drawing taken-for-granted conclusions based solely on opinion polls marred by misunderstandings of the jury system.

Third is the belief that regardless of the outcome of a jury verdict, judges must accept it. In fact, countries that adopt the jury system do not exclude mechanisms designed for judges to check and balance the jury's verdict. If a jury's guilty verdict lacks sufficient supporting actual evidence, the system can also empower the defendant to move the judge for a directed verdict of not guilty. Such a mechanism not only provides innocent defendants with an additional layer of legal relief procedures, but also allows judges to substantially participate in shaping the final verdict, while simultaneously resolving constitutional concerns that jury systems do not involve adjudication by judges.

Of course, adopting a jury trial will consume more time, resources, and costs than trial by a single judge, and it relies more heavily on prosecutors and defense attorneys exerting their utmost adversarial efforts in court. This is indeed a correct understanding that one should have when adopting a jury system. But this is arguably an inevitable cost for any system introducing citizen participation in trials—how is the kuanshen system any different? The trade-off between costs and benefits depends entirely on how legislators, representing the majority of society, make their choice.

If the majority of society, after fully understanding and comprehending trial by jury, decides to forgo it in favor of another system, this is simply the result of a value judgment, and proponents of the jury system should naturally respect, obey, and put the controversy to rest. However, if the jury system is prematurely passed over or dismissed from consideration due to misconceptions, it is bound to become a regrettable chapter in the history of judicial democratization reform!