복잡한 재판을 처리할 수 있는 배심원의 능력에 대한 연구

Similar to the patent trial between Samsung and Apple, there have been many jurytrials which involve complex legal and factual matters. Also, the technical nature of trialmatters added to the complexity of trials. The subject of continuing controversies iswhether the jurors who are composed of average lay people can make correct judgmentsand come to the right and justifiable verdicts in such complex trials. With themodernization and specialization of trial matters came many cases with enormousamounts of evidentiary pieces and information, some of which can be very difficult tocomprehend for lay jurors who are mostly not trained in law. However, it is argued that the combined mental capacities and abilities to rememberfactual evidences by all jurors are more than sufficient to compensate for the averagenessof individual jurors. With the adequate jury instructions and guidelines by the court, thejury will be able to come to the right decision by using their collective intellect, wisdomand passion for justice. On the other hand, it can be argued that judges are better able to deal with complextrials than jurors because judges are formally educated and trained in law and have moreexperiences in interpreting legal issues and evidences in logical ways. Even if they arenot well versed in particular fields, they can be trained and can accumulate necessary knowledge and expertise over time. The proponents of the jury system may claim that the collective wisdom of twelvejurors can be better in terms of making correct decisions than one judge who is toorestricted by strict legal methodologies and subsequent interpretation. The decision oftwelve jurors with diverse backgrounds, life experiences and wisdom can gain morepublic support and sympathies than individual judges who can be perceived toodetached from realities and being aloof. Ultimately, it seems to be very difficult for the jury to make right judgments anddecisions due to the complexities and technicalities associated with some trials. Whereasthe judges can be continuously trained and equipped with necessary information andknowledge in specific areas of law, the jury is not allowed to do so, even if it appearsnecessary. However, it seems to be undesirable to exclude jury trials unilaterally in thosetrials because it is difficult to set up clear and concrete standards for such exclusions,and furthermore there is a risk of subjective views being reflected in applying theexclusion standards. The exclusion of jury trials based on conceivably ambiguous standards may deprivethe parties of the right to receive jury trials under the U.S. Constitution and the Koreanlaws on jury trials. It seems that a better approach is to find the ways to assist the jurorsin making adequate judgments and verdicts in complex jury trials. This approachshould be preceded by the changed perceptions of judges and lawyers who need toovercome their preconceptions about jurors and to have more positive perspectives onjurors. One of the most fundamental ways to improve jurors' capacities in complex trialswould be to improve jury instructions so that jurors can better understand and applylaws into the given facts. Also, the bifurcation of trial procedures into the causationphase and the remaining trial phases would be helpful in making jurors focus on thespecific matters that they need to focus without being distracted by other collateralmatters. The utilization of court-appointed experts would give important guidelines tojurors who can be led in the right directions in decision-making process. Additionally,allowing jurors to take notes, to pose questions to the witnesses, and to discussthemselves prior to jury deliberations can help them in making adequate decisions incomplex trials as long as they are implemented with some precautionary measures and followed by adequate jury instructions.