skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 200832 Find in a Library
Title: CJA Mittermaier and the 19th Century Debate About Juries and Mixed Courts
Journal: International Review of Penal Law  Volume:72  Issue:1-2  Dated:2001  Pages:347-353
Author(s): Arnd Koch
Date Published: 2001
Page Count: 7
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: France
Annotation: This article discusses C.J.A. Mittermaier’s position on lay participation in Germany.
Abstract: Mittermaier, a German scholar, maintained that the principles of the public oral criminal trial could only be consistently satisfied by a jury court. He was sure that such principles could not be satisfied when the interrogating and sentencing were carried out by the same person. He understood the examination of the defendant and witnesses by the judge as an element of the old inquisitory process that was incompatible with the new trial principles. Mittermaier saw conflicts with the basic principles of orality and immediacy. He interpreted the judge’s examination as a violation of the presumption of innocence, as the judge inevitably entered into the court with opinions that were formed in the previous study of case files. It is clear that Mittermaier rejected the concept of the mixed court. This criticism was based on a number of arguments that are relevant today. He asserted that a collective body of professional judges and lay assessors risks being “superficially collegial” in so far as the professional judges attempt to influence the lay assessors. True collegiality, according to him, depends on the equality of the court members. This equality does not exist so long as the assessors are expected to arrive at their decisions solely based on the trial hearing while the judge is in addition informed by the case files and pre-investigation results. The judge can draw on this extra information to influence the assessors. That judges appear to be inevitably biased through their previous study of case files is still criticized today. Contemporary critics also find fault in the presiding judge’s duty to interrogate the defendant, as through this the judge is pressured into assuming a position opposing the defendant. Some critics see lay assessors as “puppets with strings” in the hands of the professional judges, at least as far as the assessors have no knowledge of the case files. 40 footnotes
Main Term(s): German Democratic Republic; Lay judges
Index Term(s): Court personnel; Foreign courts; Judges; Police testimony; Trial procedures; Verdicts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=200832

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.