Civil juries in Okinawa’s past and Japan’s future - Civil Jury Trials Could Change Japan [Minji Baishin Saiban Ga Nihon Wo Kaeru] By Osamu NIIKURA, Satoru SHINOMIYA, Hiroshi FUKURAI, & Takayuki II Tokyo: Nihon Hyōronsha, 2020. 288 pp. Hardcover $35.00.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Colin P. A. Jones
Keyword(s):  
1952 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 247-268
Author(s):  
Clement Franklin Robinson
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 551-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Horan ◽  
Shelley Maine
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 510-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Inés Bergoglio
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 698-718
Author(s):  
Emma Rowden ◽  
Anne Wallace

This article reports on empirical research conducted into the use of audiovisual links (videolinks) to take expert testimony in jury trials. Studies reveal ambivalent attitudes to court use of videolink, with most previous research focussed on its use for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Our study finds there are issues unique to expert witnesses appearing by videolink, such as compromised ability to gesture and interact with exhibits and demonstrative tools, and reductions in availability of feedback to gauge juror understanding. Overall, the use of videolinks adds an additional cognitive load to the task of giving expert evidence. While many of these issues might be addressed through environmental or technological improvements, we argue this research has broader ramifications for expert witnesses and the courts. The use of videolinks for taking expert evidence exposes the contingent nature of expertise and the cultural scaffolding inherent in its construction. In reflecting on the implications of these findings, and on the way that reliability, credibility and expertise are defined and established in court, we suggest a more critical engagement with the relationship between content and mode of delivery by stakeholders.


1968 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley Zdep ◽  
Warner Wilson

160 undergraduates read excerpts from a jury trial in either a defense-prosecution or a prosecution-defense order. A significant recency effect appeared on both opinion ( p < .05) and retention ( p < .01) measures. An attempt to manipulate the order effect, by interpolating materials from another jury trial, either between the parts of the first trial or after the first trial and the opinion rating, proved unsuccessful, possibly because the interpolated materials were not of sufficient length to allow for significant forgetting This study agrees with several others in showing mostly recency effects in decisions concerning jury trials.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Wilson ◽  
Hiroshi Fukurai ◽  
Takashi Maruta
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Tatyana K. Ryabinina ◽  
◽  
Daria O. Chistilina ◽  

The main objective is to examine the powers of the presiding judge in jury trials in the context of adversarial principles of criminal proceedings. Particular attention will be paid by the authors to different approaches to the notion of adversariality and the definition of the role of a professional judge in such courts, as well as the degree of his activity during the judicial investigation. The main methods used by the authors were dialectical and systematic method, analysis, synthesis, as well as special legal methods of knowledge. The outcome of the research will be a definition of the role of the presiding judge in a jury trial. Forms of criminal procedure that allow the individual to directly participate in the deci-sion-making process of the judiciary are responsible for ensuring citizen participation in the administration of justice in the state. Two such forms have been developed in the world practice so far: the classical jury trial model and the Scheffen model. Each of them provides certain (broad or narrow) powers of a professional judge, the scope of which determines the degree of independence of citizens and the ultimate prospects for the development of a system of popular democratic justice in an adversarial system of criminal proceedings. In today's Russia, the classical jury trial model, modeled after the English jury trial, does not provide for broad powers of the court. In addition, there is the adversarial principle in Russia, which is fostered by the existence of jury trials. However, strict adherence to its provisions may lead to a misunderstanding of the role of the presiding judge in such a court. The activity of a professional judge should be balanced in accordance with the needs of the criminal case under consideration. Thus, requesting additional evidence in the course of the trial in order to verify existing evidence should not be considered a violation of the adversarial principle. Thus, the development of the optimal model for jury trial functioning as well as the determination of the presiding judge's role in the context of adversarial principles of criminal proceedings is a socially-systemic task. It requires a comprehensive dogmatic, comparative-legal and political-legal approach in order to develop the jury trial model which is more con-sistent with the legal system of the state.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document