TRIAL BY JURY IN GERMANY.

Mataura Ensign, Issue 1463, 18 March 1905, Page 3

TRIAL BY JURY IN GERMANY.

Burt Estes Howard contributes to the current issue of the 'Political Science Quarterly' a paper on "Trial by Jury in Germany." A number of points brought out in this article will be found interesting", in view of certain criticisms and suggestions of reform directed towards the American jury system. For one thing, in Germany the plan

of the supplementary jurymen is adopted as it has been proposed in America. 11l addition to the twelve who constitute the reguSar jury, one, or more persons may be drawn by lot at the same time to act as supplement arv jurors. These men sit in the case, take part in the trial, and ha'e the same right in proposing motions as the other jurors. Cnder ordinary circumstances they are not allowed to retire with the jury for deliberation, and they do not participate in finding the Verdict ; but should one of (lie regular jurors be suddenly incapacitated for service, by reason of illness or from some other cause, his place is taken by a supplementary juror, and the trial (the necessity for a new one being thus avoided) proceeds without, delay.

Then, again, in the finding of a Verdict an unanimous vote is not required. The law prescribes that for the affirmation of the question of guilt a majority of two-thirds is necessary. That is, it takes eight votes to convict. Jf the vote, therefore, stands seven viction and live for acquittal, (he defendant, must be declared to be acquitted. The same' majority of twothirds is required for the affirmation of a question as to the existence, of circumstances increasing the penalty of the offence.

On the other hand, a question as to the existence of circumstances lessening or wholly removing the ,<venalty is regarded as aliirmed when only five vote "Yes." A question relating to the existence of "mitigating circumstances," since it belongs to the domain of p-nalty rather than to that of guilt or penalty, requires for its denial a simple majority. That is, seven votes will suffice to deny. Tn case of » tie on such a_ question, it is considered as answered in the affirmative. In connection with every answer unfavorable to the defendant, it must be staled expressly in the verdict that the question Was decided by the majority rerpfrcd by law. The decision of the question of guilt in all its phases belongs to the jury alone. The exercise of the judicial power in such a way as to affect even indirectly—that is, by a manipulation of the questions—this function of the jury, would be regarded. as an unwarrantable interference in the prerogatives of that body. An amendment of the verdict is permitted up to the very point where the Court pronounced judgment.

If tile Court, after a consideration of verdict and amendments, is unanimous-

ly of the opinion that the jury has on the whole erred to tlio disadvantage of the defendant, then the Court, by decree, and without giving the grounds of its decision, refers the case for a new trial before the Court at its next session. In this matter the Court proceeds on its own motion. A case onco referred for a second trial before another session of the Couirt may not bo referred again. In the new trial judgment must be pronounced, even if the verdict is regarded as erroneous. According to the German law, trial by jury is known only in criminal procedure. The Court with which the jury sit is made up of three learned judges, who decide all technical points of the case. It is not a permanent Court, but is constituted periodically, and its judges are appointed for each session, one of them serving as president.