미국 배심제도에서의 배심원 평의 비공개 원칙과 그 한계– 국민참여재판 배심원 평결의 기속력과 관련하여 –

Article 12(2) of Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials stipulates that every juror shall abide by Acts and subordinate statutes and perform his/her duties independently and sincerely. In addition, Article 12(3) stresses that no juror shall commit any act of undermining the fairness of a trial. Even though jurors take public office temporarily, they shall fulfill their duty sincerely to ensure fairness and impartiality of verdict. In jurors’ decision-making process, juror accountability can be achieved when there are mechanisms for appeal from the parties as well as check and criticism from the public. However, the fact that Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials does not require reasoning of the verdict from jury impairs juror accountability, compounded with the principle of ensuring secrecy of jury deliberation. This article analyzed relevant laws and precedents of the non-impeachment rule in the United States from a comparative perspective, to show that the Korean system maintains a lower level of juror accountability, by almost not allowing exceptions to jury deliberation secrecy. Finally, this article concludes that lawmakers should consider amending this rigid secrecy rule if they intend to give the jury’s verdict binding effect, as widely discussed recently.