재판장 설명에 관한 비교법적 고찰 = A Study of the comparative law on the Jury Instruction

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Jurors do not search out the evidence; neither do they seek out the law that is to be applied to the case. Rather the trial judge instructs them about the legal principals that are relevant to the case. These instruction are a crucial part of a trial. Jurors may reach erroneous verdicts because they ignore the law or do not determine the facts correctly, but errors are inevitable if the jurors do not understand the applicable law. But, even with better methods of presenting jury instruction, they will not be completely understood. Surely, this is a weakness in jury system, but its detrimental effects can be overstates. In fact, it is worth repeating that judges generally agree with juries`` verdicts, and when they differ, judges usually ascribe the conflict to differing views of the evidence. Whatever conceptions of the law jujors use to decide cases, their notions typically coincide with those of the judges. About all, the jury system currently fulfills its funtions - not perfectly, but very well. It could serve them even better if the evidence presented to juries were improved. If we make jury instruction better, and jury verdicts will be better. Yet, despite this truth, that individual jurors do not judge the evidence has been a constant complaint. So, many people concludes that it is neither truth nor justice but jury selection that decides the case in America. As the efforts to improve witness identification procedures indicate, entrenched attitudes and practics with an objective consideration of reform and hinder the adoption of necessary improvements. Methods for institutionalizing jury instruction need to be found. So, it is necessary to rule jury instruction clearly in the connection with court-oriented Trials. It is time that a device on the jury instructions must be discussed to exercise the social justice. I think that the law must be enforced to be more efficiently and consistently through the testimony of a person and jury system in a criminal proceeding. In this context, Jurors have a strong sense of responsibility for the realization of nation-wide wishes for clean society through jury instruction.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 도중진, "형사재판절차에 있어서 배심 및 참심제도의 도입방안" 한국형사정책연구원 2003

2 김종구, "형사사법개혁론 -새로운 패러다임의 비교법적 모색-" 법문사 2004

3 박미숙, "형사사건의 신속처리방안에 관한 연구" 한국형사정책연구원 1998

4 신태영, "프랑스의 사법제도" 211 :

5 김영기, "프랑스 형사절차의 현재와 개혁동향" 한국형사소송법학회 (창간) : 2009

6 대검찰청, "각국의 국민 형사재판참여제도"

7 대검찰청, "각국의 국민 형사재판참여제도"

8 대검찰청, "각국의 국민 형사재판참여제도"

9 대검찰청, "각국의 국민 형사재판참여제도"

10 대검찰청, "각국의 국민 형사재판참여제도"

11 Randolph N. Jonakait, "The American Jury System" Yale University Press 2002

12 Kleinknecht, "Strafprozeßordnung" 1999

13 Rolando V. del Carmen, "Criminal Procedure -Law and Practice-" 1995

14 LaFave, Wayne R., "Criminal Procedure" West 2004

15 "Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions" West 2001

16 John Sprack, "CRIMINAL PROCEDURE" OXFORD