Two Peas in a Pod? A Comprehensive Comparison of Juries and Mixed Tribunals

Everyday citizens participate as decision-makers in criminal cases in most of the countries worldwide. The specific way in which they participate can take different forms. The two prominent forms of lay participation in criminal trials are juries (groups of individuals selected from the community who collectively decide the outcome of criminal cases) and mixed tribunals (groups of lay citizens and professional judges who collectively decide the outcome of criminal cases). In this paper, we capture similarities and differences in their setup (e.g., size, requirements), procedural roles (e.g., access to the case dossier, note-taking, questions), and decision-making responsibilities (e.g., unanimity requirements, extent of participation, reasoned verdict). We argue that, although our discussion reveals numerous differences in the organization and tasks of traditional juries and mixed tribunals, informal court practices (e.g., no access to a case dossier for lay judges in mixed tribunals), recent court decisions (e.g., directed verdicts for juries), and judicial reforms (e.g., more active roles for jurors during the trial through note-taking and question-asking) have made juries and mixed tribunals more alike.