미국의 만장일치제 배심 평결 원칙과 편입(incorporation) 이론에 관한 판례의 변천 – 국민참여재판의 평결과 관련하여 –

This study examines the principle of unanimous jury verdicts in the United States and the development of the Supreme Court’s doctrine of selective incorporation, focusing on the tension between protecting defendants’ rights and ensuring judicial efficiency. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a fair jury trial, with unanimity traditionally regarded as an essential element. However, Louisiana and Oregon permitted non-unanimous verdicts for historical and political reasons, and in Apodaca v. Oregon (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such systems at the state level. This was an exceptional deviation from the principle of selective incorporation, and controversy persisted for decades. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court identified the logical weaknesses of Apodaca and reaffirmed the uniform application of incorporated rights. Finally, Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) applied the unanimity requirement to all states, abolishing the exception. Academic discourse has been divided between proponents of unanimity—emphasizing its role in ensuring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, promoting deliberative democracy, respecting minority opinions, and preventing wrongful convictions—and critics, who highlight delays, increased costs, and hung jury rates as grounds for majority verdict systems. Korea’s Citizen Participation Trial system adopts a hybrid model that seeks unanimity but allows majority verdicts when unanimity fails, with verdicts carrying only advisory force. As a result, minority not-guilty opinions risk exclusion from final judgments. The trajectory of U.S. jurisprudence offers valuable lessons for Korea, suggesting a re-evaluation of the unanimity principle and the introduction of institutional safeguards—such as respecting minority not-guilty votes and limiting convictions in cases of non-unanimous verdicts.