1 For a concise English-language account of the history of the invention of the mixed court in Germany, see Gerhard Casper & Hans Zeisel, Lay Judges in the German Criminal Courts, 1 J. Legal Stud. 135, 136–41 (1972) [hereinafter cited as Casper & Zeisel]. Figures on the modern extent of the mixed court in Western European legal systems are tabulated in Gerhard Casper & Hans Zeisel, Der Laienrichter im Strafprozess 9 (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller Juristischer Verlag, 1979 [hereinafter cited as Casper & Zeisel, Laienrichter].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Stanley, Justin A., The Resolution of Minor Disputes and the Seventh Amendment, 60 Marquette L. Rev. 963, 971 (1977). (Stanley's context was the reform of American small claims courts, an exceptionally adventurous borrowing from the criminal procedural context of the mixed court.).Google Scholar

3 In addition to the works by Casper & Zeisel, supra note 1, see Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich, Das Laienrichtertum in der Strafrechtspflege der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Schweiz, 94 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 229 (1977), and modern literature there cited. For older work see the two-volume set of studies, Schwurgerichte and Schöffengerichte (Wolfgang Mittermaier & M. Liepmann, eds.) (Leipzig, 1908). A forthcoming book is John P. Richert, The Role of Lay Judges in the West German Criminal Courts (1981?). I have discussed the work of the mixed courts in John H. Langbein, Comparative Criminal Procedure: Germany (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1977).Google Scholar

4 The theme of John P. Dawson, A History of Lay Judges (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960).Google Scholar

5 See John P. Dawson, The Oracles of the Law 242–58 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School, 1968); Jürgen Regge, Kabinettsjustiz in Brandenburg-Preussen (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1977).Google Scholar

6 Cesare Beccaria, Of Crimes and Punishments, in Alessandro Manzoni, The Column of In famy, prefaced by Cesare Beccaria's Of Crimes and Punishments, trans. Kenelm Foster & Jane Grigson, 23 (London: Oxford University Press, 1964).Google Scholar

7 Adhémar Esmein, A History of Continental Criminal Procedure 408–18, 433–35, 460–61, 462–99 (trans. J. Simpson) (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1913).Google Scholar

8 Erich Schwinge, Der Kampf um die Schwurgerichte (Breslau 1926).Google Scholar

9 Günther Hadding, Schwurgerichte in Deutschland: Der Schwurgerichtsgedanke seit 1848 (Kassel: Schneider & Weber, 1974).Google Scholar

10 For an English-language summary of these developments see Casper & Zeisel, supra note 1, at 136–41.Google Scholar

11 By the Statute on Court Organization (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz) of 1877, on whose history see Peter Landau, Die Reichsjustizgesetze von 1879 und die deutsche Rechtseinheit, in Vom Reichsjustizamt zum Bundesministerium der Justiz 161 (Cologne: Bundesanzeiger-Verlagsgesellschaft, 1977).Google Scholar

12 See Jescheck, supra note 3, at 232.Google Scholar

13 Discussed infra, text at note 69.Google Scholar

14 See generally Claus Roxin, ed., Strafverfahrensrecht 30–35 (16th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1980); Eduard Kern & Manfred Wolf, Gerichtsverfassungsrecht 150–58 (5th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1975).Google Scholar

15 The prosecution may insist on jury trial even if the accused wishes to waive it, but this seldom occurs. See Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965). In practice the only important election is the accused's.Google Scholar

16 I have collected some figures in John H. Langbein, Torture and Plea Bargaining, 46 U. Chi. L. Rev. 3, 9 & n.11 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 See generally John H. Langbein, Controlling Prosecutorial Discretion in Germany, 41 U. Chi. L. Rev. 439 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 On discretion, id.; on plea bargaining, Langbein, John H., Land Without Plea Bargaining: How the Germans Do It, 78 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1979).Google Scholar

19 Strafprozessordnung (Code of Criminal Procedure) § 267(1).Google Scholar

20 See generally Roxin, supra note 14, at 281–312; for an English-language account, Langbein, supra note 3, at 82–86.Google Scholar

21 Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100 (1904).Google Scholar

22 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz § 194(1).Google Scholar

23 Casper & Zeisel, supra note 1, at 151.Google Scholar

24 Id. at 149–51. American trial duration data is collected in Langbein, supra note 16, at 10 & n.18.Google Scholar

25 This and the previous paragraph are derived from Langbein, supra note 18, at 207–8.Google Scholar

26 “Juries have the disadvantage … of being treated like children while the testimony is going on, but then being doused with a kettleful of law during the charge that would make a third-year law student blanch.” Curtis Bok, I Too, Nicodemus 261–62 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946).Google Scholar

27 See McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971), where the bifurcated California procedure and the unitary Ohio procedure for jury determination of death sentences were upheld. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals said in its Report on Courts, Standard 5.1, at 110 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973), “Jury sentencing should be abolished in all situations.” It explained:. Although 13 States still allow jury sentencing in noncapital cases, the practice has been condemned by every serious study and analysis in the last half-century. Jury sentencing is nonprofessional and is more likely than judge sentencing to be arbitrary and based on emotions rather than the needs of the offender or society. Sentencing by juries leads to disparate sentences and leaves little opportunity for development of sentencing policies. Id., Commentary. This hostility to jury participation in sentencing is widespread; it is quite difficult to reconcile with the supposed virtues of the jury in matters of verdict, discussed below in part II of this article.Google Scholar

28 For detail on the study design, including the weighting of certain data, see Casper & Zeisel, supra note 1, at 143–46.Google Scholar

29 Harry Kalven, Jr., & Hans Zeisel, The American Jury (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Casper & Zeisel, supra note 1, at 185–91.Google Scholar

31 Id. at 189–91.Google Scholar

32 This and the next paragraph are derived from Langbein, supra note 3, at 137–38.Google Scholar

33 Casper & Zeisel, supra note 3, at 155–75.Google Scholar

34 Quoted in McCauliff, C. M. A., The Reach of the Constitution: American Peace-time Court in West Berlin, 55 Notre Dame Law. 682, 696 (1980).Google Scholar

35 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz § 43(2). The statute says “twelve regular session days per year,” and the practice is to spread them.Google Scholar

36 Id. §§ 32–36.Google Scholar

37 Ekkehard Klausa, Ehrenamtliche Richter: Ihre Auswahl und Funktion, empirisch untersucht 23–46 Frankfurt (Main): Athenäum-Verlag GmbH (1972). For an English-language summary see Langbein, supra note 3, at 142–44. For similar findings from a different data base see Casper & Zeisel, supra note 1, at 183.Google Scholar

38 Interview, Einwohnermeldeamt der Stadt Augsburg, June 27, 1980.Google Scholar

39 Klausa, supra note 37, at 28.Google Scholar

40 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz §43(1).Google Scholar

41 Id. § 40.Google Scholar

42 Klausa, supra note 37, at 30–47.Google Scholar

43 Id. at 33–47.Google Scholar

44 Interview, Einwohnermeldeamt der Stadt Augsburg, June 27, 1980.Google Scholar

45 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz § 45.Google Scholar

46 Strafprozessordnung §§ 22, 24–31.Google Scholar

47 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz § 36(2).Google Scholar

48 391 U.S. 145 (1968).Google Scholar

49 406 U.S. 356 (1972).Google Scholar

50 406 U.S. 404 (1972).Google Scholar

51 399 U.S. 78 (1970).Google Scholar

52 435 U.S. 223 (1978).Google Scholar

53 441 U.S. 130 (1979).Google Scholar

54 391 U.S. at 156.Google Scholar

55 Id.Google Scholar

56 Schwinge, supra note 8, passim.Google Scholar

57 Jescheck, supra note 3, at 237–38; Kern & Wolf, supra note 14, at 152.Google Scholar

58 391 U.S. at 156.Google Scholar

59 But see note 27 supra.Google Scholar

60 435 U.S. 223 (1978).Google Scholar

61 Id. at 231–33, esp. Lempert, Richard O., Uncovering “Nondiscernible” Differences: Empirical Research and the Jury-Size Cases, 73 Mich. L. Rev. 643 (1975).Google Scholar

62 435 U.S. at 233 and sources cited id. at n.13.Google Scholar

63 Id. at 233–34 (footnotes omitted).Google Scholar

64 Id. at 234.Google Scholar

65 Id. at 234–35.Google Scholar

66 Id. at 236.Google Scholar

67 Id. at 236–37.Google Scholar

68 See Casper & Zeisel, Laienrichter, supra note 1, at 9.Google Scholar

69 The one critical voice of note: Honig, Richard M., Ehrenamtliche Richter im Schwurgericht, 28 Monatsschrift fur Deutsches Recht 898 (1974).Google Scholar

70 Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Entwurf eines Ersten Gesetzes zur Reform des Strafverfahrensrechts (Drucksache 7/551) 54 (Bonn: Verlag Dr. Hans Heger, 1974).Google Scholar

71 Casper and Zeisel obtained a small amount of data from the former nine-judge Schwurge richt, in which they did find greater divergence. Casper & Zeisel, supra note 1, at 175–80.Google Scholar

72 Compare Broeder, Dale W., The Functions of the Jury: Facts or Fictions? 21 U. Chi. L. Rev. 386 (1954), with Scheflin, Alan W., Jury Nullification: The Right to Say No, 45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 168 (1972).Google Scholar

73 For further discussion of the jury policies see the effort at cataloging pros and cons that was submitted by the University of Chicago Jury Project as “Memorandum Regarding Jury System,”in Recording of Jury Deliberations: Hearings Pursuant to S. Res. 58 Before the Subcommittee to In vestigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 63–81 (1955). See also Patrick Devlin, Trial by Jury (rev. 3d impression; London: Stevens & Sons, Ltd., 1966).Google Scholar

74 Casper & Zeisel, supra note 1, at 150.Google Scholar

75 Id.Google Scholar

76 391 U.S. at 150 n.14.Google Scholar

77 Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978); Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971); North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970); Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970); McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970); Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790 (1970).Google Scholar

78 U.S. Const, amend. VI (emphasis added).Google Scholar

79 See Langbein, John H., Understanding the Short History of Plea Bargaining, 13 Law & Soc'y Rev. 261, 269–70 (1979).Google Scholar

80 The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld a statute authorizing bench trial under the state con stitution but recorded its disapproval. The opinion says that it is “impolitic and unwise … to place the life or liberty of any person accused of crime, even by his own consent, at the disposal of any one man or two men, so long as man is a fallible being.” State v. Worden, 46 Conn. 349, 367 (1878).Google Scholar

81 Unless, of course, the defendant waives all trial by pleading guilty. See R. M. Jackson, The Machinery of Justice in England 183 (7th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

82 Alschuler, Albert W., Plea Bargaining and Its History, 79 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1979); Langbein, supra note 79.Google Scholar

83 See the evidence in Langbein, John H., The Criminal Trial Before the Lawyers, 45 U. Chi. L. Rev. 263, 278–79 (1978).Google Scholar

84 Langbein, supra note 83, at 277.Google Scholar

85 F. D. MacKinnon, The Law and the Lawyers, in 2 A. S. Turberville, ed., Johnson's England 287, 307 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933) (referring to R. v. Hardy, 24 St. Tr. 199 (1794)).Google Scholar

86 United States, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 1976 Annual Report of the Director, app. at p. 1–41 table C9 (Washington, D.C.: Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 1976).Google Scholar

87 The figure for Los Angeles appears in San Francisco Committee on Crime, A Report on the Criminal Courts of San Francisco, Part I: The Superior Court Backlog—Consequences and Rem edies 1 (1970). See Langbein, supra note 16, at 10 n.18, for further discussion of this and com parable figures.Google Scholar

88 The following account is based on Langbein, supra note 83.Google Scholar

89 New York Times, March 12, 1971, p. 43, summarized in Yale Kamisar, Wayne R. LaFave, & Jeroid H. Israel, Modern Criminal Procedure 1329 (4th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1974).Google Scholar

90 The famous term of Sir Thomas Smith, De Republica Anglorum 80 (London 1583).Google Scholar

91 This paragraph is derived from John H. Langbein, Torture and Plea Bargaining, The Public Interest, Winter 1980, at 49–50.Google Scholar