Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T07:53:49.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Enduring Systems of Lay Participation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2021

Sanja Kutnjak Ivković
Michigan State University
Shari Seidman Diamond
Northwestern University, Illinois
Valerie P. Hans
Cornell University, New York
Nancy S. Marder
Chicago-Kent College of Law
Get access


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts
A Global Perspective
, pp. 129 - 194
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Ames, A., Szyndler, R., Burston, K., Phillips, R. Keith, J., Gaunt, R., Davies, S., & Mottram, C. (2011). The strengths and skills of the judiciary in the magistrates’ courts. London: Ministry of Justice/Ipsos Mori.Google Scholar
Bowcott, O., & Duncan, P. (2019, January 17). Half of magistrates’ courts in England and Wales closed since 2010. Guardian. Scholar
Bundesamt für Justiz [Federal Office of Justice (Ger.)]. (2016). Zahl der richter, richterinnen, staatsanwälte, staatsanwältinnen und vertreter, vertreterinnen des ӧffentlichen interesses in der Rechtspflege der Bundesrepublik Deutschland am 31. Dezember 2014 [Number of judges, public prosecutors, and representatives of public interest in the administration of justice in the Federal Republic of Germany on December 31, 2014]. Scholar
Burney, E. (1979). Magistrate, court and community. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Cammiss, S., & Cunningham, S. K. (2015). Swift and sure justice? Mode of trial for causing death by driving offences. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 15, 321339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlile, Alex, Lord of Berriew (2014). Independent parliamentarians’ inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the youth court. Scholar
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (UK). (n.d.-a). District judge (magistrates’ courts). Scholar
Cownie, F., Bradney, A., & Burton, M. (2013). English legal system in context. 6th ed. London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darbyshire, P. (1999). A comment on the powers of magistrates’ clerks. Criminal Law Review, May, 377386.Google Scholar
Darbyshire, P.(2011). Sitting in judgment: The working lives of judges. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Darbyshire, P.(2017). Darbyshire on the English legal system. 12th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. S. (1990). Revising images of public punitiveness: Sentencing by lay and professional English magistrates. Law and Social Inquiry, 15, 191221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, J. C. (2014). Reforming the role of magistrates: Implications for summary justice in England and Wales. Modern Law Review, 77, 928963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, F. (2018, July 12). Dwindling number of magistrates. Sunday Times. Scholar
Gov.UK. (2019). Work out who qualifies for criminal legal aid. Scholar
Graham, J., & Moore, C. (2006). Beyond welfare versus justice: Juvenile justice in England and Wales. In Junger-Tas, J & Decker, S. H. (Eds.), International handbook of juvenile justice (pp. 6592). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Green, C., Sprott, J. B., Madon, N. S., & Jung, M. (2010). Punishing processes in youth court: Procedural justice, court atmosphere and youths’ views of the legitimacy of the justice system. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52, 527544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haller, V., & Machura, S. (1995). Procedural justice at German courts as seen by defendants and juvenile prisoners. Social Justice Research, 8, 197215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbert, A. (2004). Mode of trial and the influence of local justice. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 6578.Google Scholar
Holvast, N. (2016). The power of the judicial assistant/law clerk: Looking behind the scenes at courts in the United States, England and Wales, and the Netherlands. International Journal for Court Administration, 7, 1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley-Binns, R., & Martin, J. (2010). Unlocking the English legal system. 3rd ed. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour. (2010). Time for a new hearing. A comparative study of alternative criminal proceedings for children and young people. London: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Kutnjak Ivković, S. (1999). Lay participation in criminal trials: The case of Croatia. Lanham, MD: Austin & Winfield.Google Scholar
Lauermann, A. (1987). Strafrechtspflege am englischen Magistrates’ Court [Administration of justice at the English magistrates’ court]. Marburg: N. G. Elwert.Google Scholar
Machura, S. (2001). Fairneß und legitimität [Fairness and legitimacy]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2016a). Civil justice: Lay judges in the EU countries. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 6(2).Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2016b). Understanding the German mixed tribunal. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, 36, 273302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malsch, M. (2009). Democracy in the courts. Farnham, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
McConville, M., Hodgson, J., Bridges, L., & Pavlovic, A. (2013). Standing accused. Reprint. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Millie, A., Tombs, J., & Hough, M. (2007). Borderline sentencing. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7, 243267.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (UK). (2013). Youth justice: Seventh report of session 2012–13 (Vol. 1). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (UK).(2016). Review of the youth justice system. An interim report of emerging findings. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (UK).(2018a). Criminal justice statistics quarterly, England and Wales, September 2016 to September 2017 (provisional). Scholar
Ministry of Justice (UK).(2018b). Judicial diversity statistics 2018.–1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Morgan, R., & Russell, N. (n.d.). The judiciary in the magistrates’ courts. Scholar
Newman, D. (2012). Still standing accused: Addressing the gap between work and talk in firms of criminal justice lawyers. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 19, 327.Google Scholar
Office of National Statistics (UK). (2012). Ethnicity and national identity in England and Wales: 2011.–12-11Google Scholar
Office of National Statistics (UK).(2017). Crime in England and Wales: Bulletin tables. Year ending June 2017. Table 1. Scholar
Pruin, I., & Dünkel, F. (2015). Better in Europe? London: Barrow Cadbury Trust.Google Scholar
Raine, J. W. (1989). Local justice. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Robin-D’Cruz, C., & Whitehead, S. (2019). Pre-court diversion for adults: An evidence briefing. London: Centre for Justice Innovation.–06/cji_pre-court_diversion_d.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rossner, M., Tait, D., McKimmie, B., & Sarre, R. (2017). The dock on trial: Courtroom design and the presumption of innocence. Journal of Law and Society, 44, 317344.Google Scholar
Sherwin, R. K. (2000). When the law goes pop: The vanishing line between law and popular culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistical Office (Ger.)]. (2019). Bevölkerungsstand [Population statistics]. Scholar
Stone, N. (2017). Sentencing children: Overarching principles revisited. Youth Justice, 17, 171180.Google Scholar
Sturge, G. (2018). Court statistics for England and Wales. London: House of Commons Library. Scholar
Tarling, R. (2006). Sentencing practice in magistrates’ courts revisited. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 2941.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., Ely, C., & Estep, B. (2018). A fairer way: Procedural fairness for young adults in court. London: Centre for Justice Innovation.Google Scholar
Transform Justice. (2016). The role of the magistrate? London: Transform Justice.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ward, J. (2015). Transforming “summary justice” through police-led prosecution and virtual courts: Is procedural due process undermined? British Journal of Criminology, 55, 341358.Google Scholar
Ward, J.(2017). Transforming summary justice: Modernisation in the lower criminal courts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Welsh, L. (2013). Are magistrates’ courts really a “law free zone”? Participant observation and specialist use of language. Papers from the British Criminology Conference, 13, 316.Google Scholar
Welsh, L.(2017). The effects of changes to legal aid on lawyers’ professional identity and behaviour in summary criminal cases: A case study. Journal of Law and Society, 44, 559585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


Asimow, M. (2007). Popular culture and the adversary system. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 40(2), 653685.Google Scholar
Baderschneider, M. M. S. (2010). Der Bürger als Richter: Eine empirische Untersuchung des ehrenamtlichen Richters an den Verwaltungsgerichten [The citizen as judge: An empirical study of lay assessors at administrative courts]. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Battenberg, F. (1990). Schöffen, Schöffengericht [Lay assessors, court of lay assessors]. In Erler, A & Kaufmann, E (Eds.), Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte [Concise dictionary of German legal history], Vol. 4 (pp. 14631469). Berlin: E. Schmidt.Google Scholar
Borucka-Arctowa, M. (1976). Citizen participation in the administration of justice: Research and policy in Poland. In Friedman, L & Rehbinder, M (Eds.), Zur Soziologie des Gerichtsverfahrens: Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie [On the sociology of legal proceedings: Yearbook for legal sociology and legal theory], Vol. 4 (pp. 286299). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Bundesamt für Justiz [Federal Office of Justice (Ger.)]. (n.d.). Ehrenamtliche Richterinnen und Richter zum 1. Januar 2014, Geschlechtsstruktur: Erwachsenen- und Jugendspruchkörper insgesamt [Lay assessors as of January 1, 2014. Gender structure: Total of adult and youth panels]. Scholar
Bundesministerium der Justiz [Federal Ministry of Justice (Ger.)]. (1996). Im Namen des Volkes? Über die Justiz im Staat der SED [In the name of the people? On the legal system in the state of the SED]. Exhibition catalogue. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Forum.Google Scholar
Burgess, P., Corby, S., Höland, A., Michel, H., Willemez, L., Buchwald, C., & Krausbeck, E. (2017). The roles, resources and competencies of employee lay judges: A cross-national study of Germany, France and Great Britain. Scholar
Casper, G., & Zeisel, H. (1972). Lay judges in the German criminal court. Journal of Legal Studies, 1(1), 135191.Google Scholar
Casper, G., & Zeisel, H.(1979). Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Federal Republic of Germany]. In Casper, G & Zeisel, H (Eds.), Der Laienrichter im Strafprozeß [The lay judge in the criminal case] (pp. 2186). Heidelberg: C. F. Müller.Google Scholar
Deutsches Richtergesetz [German Law on Judges] (04/19/1972), § 1.Google Scholar
DVS.(2016b). Rechtspolitisches Programm des Bundesverbandes ehrenamtlicher Richterinnen und Richter e.V. [Legal-political program of the Federation of Lay Judges]. Richter ohne Robe, 28(1), 1017.Google Scholar
Editors. (2019). Sidenote 3. Richter ohne Robe, 31(2), 62.Google Scholar
European Convention of Human Rights (09/03/1953), Art. 6(1).Google Scholar
Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz [Court Procedure Code (Ger.)] (01/27/1877), §§ 24, 25, 29(1), 29(2), 42, 74(3), 76, 76(1), 121(1), 122, 122(1), 133, 196.Google Scholar
Gerken, J. (1986). Bürger als Richter: Eine Studie über Einstellungen und Erfahrungen von Schöffen in Jugendstrafverfahren [The citizen as judge: A study on attitudes and experiences of youth court lay assessors in youth criminal trials]. Diploma thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Gerken, J.(1988). Bürger als Richter: Über Jugendschöffen und den Erziehungsanspruch des Jugendstrafrechts [The citizen as judge: On youth court lay assessors and the pretension of the youth criminal law to educate]. In Gerken, J & Schumann, K. F. (Eds.), Ein trojanisches Pferd im Rechtsstaat: Der Erziehungsgedanke in der Jugendgerichtspraxis [A trojan horse in the rule of law: The educational concept in the practice of juvenile justice] (pp. 101125). Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.Google Scholar
Glöckner, A., & Landsberg, M. (2010). Entscheidungsverhalten von Schöffen: Forschungsbericht [Decision behavior of lay assessors at criminal courts: Research report]. Bonn: Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Gemeinschaftsgütern.Google Scholar
Glöckner, A., & Landsberg, M.(2011). Der Schöffe entscheidet: Eine empirische Studie zum Entscheidungsverhalten von Schöffen [The lay assessor at criminal court decides: An empirical study on the decision behavior of lay assessors at criminal courts]. Richter ohne Robe, 23(2), 4447.Google Scholar
Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany] (05/23/1949), Art. 20(1), 102.Google Scholar
Hillenkamp, T. (1998). Zur Teilhabe des Laienrichters [On the participation of lay judges]. In Albrecht, H.-J., Dünkel, F, Kerner, H.-J., Kürzinger, J, Schöch, H, & Sessar, K (Eds.), Internationale Perspektiven in Kriminologie und Strafrecht: Festschrift für Günther Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag [International perspectives in criminology and criminal law: Commemorative publication for Günther Kaiser on his seventieth birthday], Vol. 2 (pp. 14371459). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Kammholz, K. (2018, June 29). Wieviele Einwohner hat Deutschland eigentlich? [How many inhabitants does Germany actually have?] Berliner Morgenpost. Scholar
Kern, E. (1954). Geschichte des Gerichtsverfassungsrechts [History of the Court Procedure Code]. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Klausa, E. (1972). Ehrenamtliche Richter: Ihre Auswahl und Funktion, empirisch untersucht [Lay assessors: Their selection and function, empirically studied]. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Knittel, E. (1970). Mitbestimmung in der Strafjustiz: Was soll aus dem deutschen Schwurgericht werden? [Participation in criminal courts: What should become of the German jury court?] Marburg: N. G. Elwert.Google Scholar
Köcher, R. (2014, July 23). Großes Vertrauen in die deutsche Justiz [Great trust in German courts]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Scholar
Kronenberger, F. R. (1989). Laien in der Strafrechtspflege? [Laypersons in the administration of criminal law?] In Jung, H (Ed.), Alternativen zur Strafjustiz und die Garantie individueller Rechte der Betroffenen [Alternatives to criminal justice and guaranteeing individual rights of those affected] (pp. 185191). Bonn: Forum.Google Scholar
Kühne, H.-H. (1989). Laienkompetenz gegen Expertenkompetenz im Strafrecht? [Lay competence versus expert competence in criminal law?] In Jung, H (Ed.), Alternativen zur Strafjustiz und die Garantie individueller Rechte der Betroffenen [Alternatives to criminal justice and guaranteeing individual rights of those affected] (pp. 175183). Bonn: Forum.Google Scholar
Kutnjak Ivković, S. (1999). Lay participation in criminal trials: The case of Croatia. Lanham, MD: Austin & Winfield.Google Scholar
Lautmann, R. (1985). Rechtsfindung als Karriereberuf [Finding law as a professional career]. In Festschrift für Rudolf Wassermann zum sechzigsten Geburtstag [Commemorative publication for Rudolf Wassermann on his sixtieth birthday] (pp. 109121). Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
Lemke, M. (1999). Die grundlegenden Prinzipien des Strafverfahrens [The basic principles of criminal procedure]. In Lieber, H & Sens, U (Eds.), Ehrenamtliche Richter: Demokratie oder Dekoration am Richtertisch? [Lay assessors: Democracy or decoration at the judge’s table?] (pp. 112116). Wiesbaden: Kommunal- und Schulverlag.Google Scholar
Lempert, R. (2015). The American jury system: A synthetic overview. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 90, 825859.Google Scholar
Lennartz, O. (2016). Erziehung durch Jugendschöffen? [Education by youth court lay assessors?] Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Lennartz, O.(2017). Erziehung durch Jugendschöffen? [Education by youth court lay assessors?] Richter ohne Robe, 17(1), 35.Google Scholar
Lieber, H. (1994). Umfrage zur Arbeit der Schöffen in Brandenburg [Survey on the work of lay assessors at criminal courts in Brandenburg]. Richter ohne Robe, 6(1), 113 (cited after the manuscript).Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(1995). Das Fragerecht des Schöffen und seine Beschränkungen: Umfang, Verfahren, Konsequenzen [The right of lay assessors at criminal courts to ask questions and its limitations: Extent, procedure, consequences]. Richter ohne Robe, 7(3), 106109.Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(1996). Handbuch für Schöffinnen und Schöffen [Handbook for lay assessors at criminal courts]. Erfurt: Deutscher Kommunal-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(1997). An der Wende zweier Schöffenperioden: Ergebnisse einer Umfrage [At the watershed of two periods of lay assessors at criminal courts: Results of a survey]. Richter ohne Robe, 9(4), 118119.Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(2017). Die Verantwortung der Gemeinden und Kreise bei der Schöffenwahl 2018 [The responsibilities of municipalities and counties in the 2018 election of lay assessors at criminal courts]. Wiesbaden: Kommunal- und Schulverlag.Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(2018a). 25 Jahre Rechtspflegeentlastungsgesetz: Eine Bilanz aus der Sicht der ehrenamtlichen Richter [25 years of the Law on the Relief of the Administration of Justice: A balance from the point of view of lay assessors]. Richter ohne Robe, 30(1), 1417.Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(2018b, October 10). Prozent der Strafverfahren in mündlicher Hauptverhandlung [Percent of criminal trials in oral hearing]. Email communication.Google Scholar
Lieber, H., & Burchardt, U. (1989). Laienrichter: Dekoration oder Demokratie am Richtertisch? [Lay judges: Decoration or democracy at the judge’s table?] Dortmund: Pad-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lilie-Hutz, A. (2017). Akteneinsicht für Schöffen [Access to files by lay judges at criminal courts]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Linkenheil, B. (2003). Laienbeteiligung an der Strafjustiz [Lay participation at criminal courts]. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Machura, S. (2001a). Fairneß und Legitimität [Fairness and legitimacy]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2001b). Interaction between lay assessors and professional judges in German mixed courts. International Review of Penal Law, 72(1–2), 451479.Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2006). Ehrenamtliche Verwaltungsrichter [Lay assessors at administrative courts]. Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2007). Lay assessors of German administrative courts: Fairness, power distance orientation and deliberation activity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(2), 331362.Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2011). Media influence on the perception of the legal system. In Papendorf, K, Machura, S, & Andenaes, K (Eds.), Understanding law in society (pp. 239283). Zurich: LIT.Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2016). Civil justice: Lay judges in the EU countries. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 6(2), 235254. Scholar
Mathes, R. (1999). Volksrichter – Schöffen – Kollektive [People’s judges – Lay assessors – Collectives]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pauli, H.-U. (1999). Umfrage unter den ehrenamtlichen Richterinnen und Richtern bei dem Sozialgericht Münster [Survey of lay assessors at the Munster Social Court]. Münster: Sozialgericht Münster. Az. M E 522–91.Google Scholar
Peller, W. (1999). Schöffen in der DDR [Lay assessors in the GDR]. In Lieber, H & Sens, U (Eds.), Ehrenamtliche Richter: Demokratie oder Dekoration am Richtertisch? [Lay assessors: Democracy or decoration at the judge’s table?] (pp. 193197). Wiesbaden: Kommunal- und Schulverlag.Google Scholar
Petersen, T. (2020, June 18). Die Stunde der Wissenschaft [The hour of science]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.Google Scholar
Pfister, W. (2010). Die Verfahrensabsprache im Strafprozess: Welche Rolle haben die Schöffen? [The deal in criminal trials: What is the role of lay assessors in criminal court?] Richter ohne Robe, 22(2), 97101.Google Scholar
Pomorski, S. (1975). Lay judges in the Polish criminal courts: A legal and empirical description. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 7(2), 198209.Google Scholar
Professorinnen und Professoren genießen hohes Ansehen [Professors enjoy high prestige]. (2020). Forschung und Lehre, 27(2), 7.Google Scholar
Rasehorn, T. (2016). Die Kompetenz des Schöffen in der Praxis [The competence of lay assessors in criminal court in practice]. Richter ohne Robe, 28(1), 1718.Google Scholar
Rennig, C. (1993). Die Entscheidungsfindung durch Schöffen und Berufsrichter in rechtlicher und psychologischer Sicht [Decision-making by lay assessors in criminal court and professional judges from legal and psychological perspectives]. Marburg: N. G. Elwert.Google Scholar
Rennig, C.(2001). Influence of lay assessors and giving reasons for the judgement in German mixed courts. International Review of Penal Law, 72(1–2), 481494.Google Scholar
Rennig, C., & Machura, S. (1999). Die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Schöffen und Berufsrichtern [The cooperation between lay assessors at criminal court and professional judges]. In Lieber, H & Sens, U (Eds.), Ehrenamtliche Richter: Demokratie oder Dekoration am Richtertisch? [Lay assessors: Democracy or decoration at the judge’s table?] (pp. 6570). Wiesbaden: Kommunal- und Schul-Verlag.Google Scholar
Rennig, C., & Strempel, D. (1996). Einführung [Introduction]. In Rennig, C & Strempel, D (Eds.), Justiz im Umbruch [Justice in transition] (pp. 711). Cologne: Bundesanzeiger.Google Scholar
Rönnau, T. (2017). Lay judges in the German criminal justice system: A critical review. Waseda Law School Review, 2, 177211.Google Scholar
Rottleuthner, H. (1994). Steuerung der Justiz in der DDR [Control of the justice system in the GDR]. Cologne: Bundesanzeiger.Google Scholar
Rüter, G. (1998). Wer bleibt im Netz der Strafverfolgung hängen? [Who does not get past the net of criminal persecution?] Richter ohne Robe, 10(1), 36.Google Scholar
Schmitt, B. (2018). Strafprozessordnung [Penal Procedure Code]. 61st ed. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistical Office (Ger.)]. (2018). Rechtspflege. Strafgerichte. 2017. [Administration of justice. Criminal courts. 2017]. Fachserie 10, Reihe 2.3. Scholar
Strafprozeßordnung [Penal Procedure Code (Ger.)] (02/01/1877), § 257c.Google Scholar
Struck, G. (2011). Rechtssoziologie [Sociology of law]. Baden-Baden: Nomos UTB.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna, M (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 25 (pp. 115191). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Walter, A. (1992). Was müssen, was sollen Schöffen wissen? [What do lay assessors at criminal court have to and should know?] In Deutsche Vereinigung der Schöffinnen und Schöffen & Stiftung Mitarbeit (Eds.), 1. Deutscher Schöffentag: Mehr Demokratie am Richtertisch [More democracy at the judge’s table] (pp. 3052). Bonn: Stiftung Mitarbeit.Google Scholar
Wolfe, N. (n.d.). Untitled research report. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Zawadzki, S., & Kubicki, L. (Eds.). (1970). Udzial lawnikow w postepowaniu karnym [Lay participation in criminal cases]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Prawnisze.Google Scholar


Baguley, C. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2017). Deconstructing the simplification of jury instructions: How simplifying the features of complexity affects jurors’ application of instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 41(3), 284304.Google Scholar
Bertrand, M. I., & Jochelson, R. (2018). Mock-jurors’ self-reported understanding of Canadian judicial instructions (is not very good). Criminal Law Quarterly, 66, 137161.Google Scholar
Brewer, N., Harvey, S., & Semmler, C. (2004). Improving comprehension of jury instructions with audio-visual presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(6), 765776.Google Scholar
Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia. (2017). Celebrating 30 years of CRIMJI. Scholar
Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 13061374.Google Scholar
Clough, J., Spivak, B., Ogloff, J. R. P., Tinsley, Y., & Young, W. (2018). The judge as cartographer and guide: The role of fact-based directions in improving juror comprehension. Criminal Law Journal, 42(5), 278295.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 3746.Google Scholar
Coleman, J., Espinoza, R. K. E., & Coons, J. V. (2017). An empirical comparison of the old and revised jury instructions of California: Do jurors comprehend legalese better or does bias still exist? Open Access Library Journal, 4, 115. https://doi:10.4236/oalib.1103164Google Scholar
Comiskey, M. (2010). Initiating dialogue about jury comprehension of legal concepts: Can the “stagnant pool” be revitalized? Queen’s Law Journal, 35(2), 625678.Google Scholar
Dann, B. M., Hans, V. P., & Kaye, D. H. (2004). Testing the effects of selected jury trial innovations on juror comprehension of contested mtDNA evidence: Final technical report. National Institute of Justice. Scholar
Department of Justice (Can.). (2009). Report on jury reform. Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Justice System. Scholar
Diamond, S. S., & Levi, J. N. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79(5), 224232.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. S., Murphy, B., & Rose, M. R. (2012). The “kettleful of law” in real jury deliberations: Successes, failures, and next steps. Northwestern University Law Review, 106(4), 15371608.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. S., & Rose, M. R. (2005), Real juries. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 255285.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. S., Lyon, D. R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors’ decisions in a murder trial. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 485501.Google Scholar
Ede, T., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2013). Question trails in trials: Structured versus unstructured juror decision-making. Criminal Law Journal, 37(2), 114136.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52(4), 205224.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, P. C., & Reifman, A. (2000). Juror comprehension and public policy: Perceived problems and solutions. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6(3), 788821.Google Scholar
Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1(2), 163189.Google Scholar
Ewanation, L. A., Yamamoto, S., Monnink, J., & Maeder, E. M. (2017). Perceived realism and the CSI-effect. Cogent Social Sciences, 3, Article 129446.Google Scholar
Ferguson, G. A., Dambrot, M. A., & Bennett, E. (2005). CRIMJI: Canadian criminal jury instructions. 4th ed. Vancouver: Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Goodman, J., & Greene, E. (1989). The use of the paraphrase analysis in the simplification of jury instructions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4(3), 237251.Google Scholar
Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 21(6), 575595.Google Scholar
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13(4), 409430.Google Scholar
Jones, C. S., & Myers, E. R. (1979). Comprehension of jury instructions in a simulated Canadian court. Studies on the jury. Canada Law Reform Commission.Google Scholar
Judicial Council of California. (1996). Blue ribbon commission on jury system improvement: Final report. Scholar
Judicial Council of California.(2005). California criminal jury instructions for judges and attorneys (CALCRIM). Advisory Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions. Scholar
Kramer, G. P., & Koenig, D. M. (1990). Do jurors understand criminal jury instructions? Analyzing the results of the Michigan juror comprehension project. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 23(3), 401437.Google Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159174.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2018). Death qualification in black and white: Racialized decision making and death-qualified juries. Law & Policy, 40(2), 148171.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, P. (1977). Conspiracy and sedition as Canadian political crimes. McGill Law Journal, 23, 622643.Google Scholar
Maeder, E. M., & Dempsey, J. L. (2013). A likely story? The influence of type of alibi and defendant gender on juror decision-making. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(4), 543552.Google Scholar
Marder, N. (2006). Bringing jury instructions into the twenty-first century. Notre Dame Law Review, 81, 449511.Google Scholar
McKimmie, B. M., Antrobus, E., & Baguley, C. (2014). Objective and subjective comprehension of jury instructions in criminal trials. New Criminal Law Review, 17(2), 163183.Google Scholar
Nieland, R. (1979). Pattern jury instructions: A critical look at a modern movement to improve the jury system. Chicago: American Judicature Society.Google Scholar
Ogloff, J. R. P. (1991a). A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 15(5), 509531.Google Scholar
Ogloff, J. R. P.(1991b). The use of the insanity defence in BC: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Ottawa: Department of Justice, Canada.Google Scholar
Ogloff, J. R. P.(1998). Judicial instructions and the jury: A comparison of alternative strategies. Vancouver: BC Law Foundation.Google Scholar
Ogloff, J. R. P., & Vidmar, N. (1994). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors: A study to compare the relative effects of television and print media in a child sex abuse case. Law and Human Behavior, 18(5), 507525.Google Scholar
Parliament of Canada. (2018). Improving support for jurors in Canada. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. 42nd Parl., 1st Session. Scholar
Patry, M.W., & Penrod, S. D. (2013). Death penalty decisions: Instruction comprehension, attitudes, and decision mediators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(3), 204244.Google Scholar
Prager, I. G., Deckelbaum, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). Improving juror understanding for intervening causation instructions. Forensic Reports, 2(3), 187193.Google Scholar
Thibert, R. v., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 37 (Can.).Google Scholar
Rose, G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25(4), 409431.Google Scholar
Schuller, R. A., Ryan, A., Krauss, D., & Jenkins, G. (2013). Mock juror sensitivity to forensic evidence in drug facilitated sexual assaults. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36(2), 121128.Google Scholar
Schuller, R. A., Terry, D. J., & McKimmie, B. M. (2005). The impact of expert testimony on jurors’ decisions: Gender of the expert and testimony complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 12661280.Google Scholar
Severance, L. J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 75(1), 198233.Google Scholar
Shams, L., & Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 411417.Google Scholar
Shams, L., Wozny, D. R., Kim, R., & Seitz, A. (2011). Influences of multisensory experience on subsequent unisensory processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 264, 19.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. (2010). Are juries fair? Ministry of Justice research studies. No. 1/10. London: HMSO. Scholar
Tiersma, P., & Curtis, M. (2008). Testing the comprehensibility of jury instructions: California’s old and new instructions on circumstantial evidence. Journal of Court Innovation, 1(1), 231262.Google Scholar
Watt, D. (2005). Watt’s manual of criminal jury instructions. Toronto: Thomson Carswell.Google Scholar
Whittemore, K. R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1995). Factors that influence jury decision making: Disposition instructions and mental state at the time of trial. Law and Human Behavior, 19(3), 283303.Google Scholar
Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 455467.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats