Relationship between Hearsay Rule and Trial by Jury in US Evidentiary Rules - Management and Improvement of Hearsay Rule in Korea’s Citizen Participation Trials -

The formation of the Anglo-American hearsay rule is closely related to the role of the jury, and an important goal of its introduction into the Anglo-American trials was to prevent errors in the jury's assessment of the facts by blocking questionable hearsay evidence that categorically lacks credibility. The hearsay rule under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act was clearly inspired by Anglo-American evidence law, and is also closely aligned with the jury system. However, no antecedent jury system existed in the Korean legal system prior to the adoption of the hearsay rule under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which mainly focused on inclusions that recognized the admissibility of documentary evidence prepared by investigation agencies. However, the citizen participation trial by jury needs reform to encompass greater trial-centered fact finding than a trial by an inquisitorial judge. Therefore, it is necessary to limit the scope of exceptions to the hearsay rule, which was originally favorable to the admissibility of the protocols prepared by investigation agencies. Thus, the issue of implementing the principle of immediacy and orality in trials is continuing to emerge as the new focus of reform in the traditionally inquisitorial system, augmenting amendments introduced in 2007 that were designed to encourage expeditious and open trial-centeredness, including discovery rules, and a more visibly adversarial system. In Korea, we should narrow the scope of the exceptions to the hearsay rule in the jury trial, and come up with operational measures to allow jurors to make a judgment of the facts through oral and direct evidence received in court.