시민의 참여에 친한 민사재판절차의 효율적 법률체계

The Framers of the United States Constitution considered both the right to a ju-ry trial and the performance of juror service as sacred and necessary to preserve individual freedom. Juror service was, and still is, viewed as a duty and privilege of citizenship, and as a necessary check against government use of the courts to wrongly convict the innocent. The right to trial by jury is guaranteed by the con-stitutions of the Commonwealth and the United States of America. Over two hun-dred years later, the jury system continues to serve a vital role in the democracy. Throughout the years refinements have been implemented to reduce the burden placed upon those who are called to serve as jurors. For example, it was not long ago when Massachusetts jurors would serve for a period of one month and may have sat on more than one trial. Participation as a juror imposed such a heavy burden on each citizen summoned to serve that exemptions were necessary - thus, many people were excluded. As a result of the large number of citizens qualifying for exemption, the jury pools were not as likely to very accurately rep-resent an inclusive cross-section of the community. Progressive refinements took place in the early 1980 s. To expand citizen partic-ipation jury service had to be made less burdensome. The Commonwealth be-came the first in the nation to implement a statewide one day/one trial system. Under this system, trial jurors serve either one day or, if impaneled, one trial. After juror service has been satisfied, in order to give more people the oppor-tunity to serve, that juror is disqualified from serving again for a minimum of three years. The new system also shortened the length of grand juror service from six months to three. Today, class exemptions no longer exist so more citi-zens have an opportunity to perform juror service. However the jury trial in USA is different from the legal system and culture in Korea: In this system that operate independently of the judge, a jury must render a verdict and convict of a crime. In a criminal case the jury could find for or against the plaintiff without the interference of the judge. In comparison with this kind of the criminal action, the civil legal proceedings is in need of a basic knowledge about the legal question so that the criminal jury system is not able to apply to a civil action, in which the recognition of real facts and the valuation of various evidences are very essential in order to adjudicate on a civil case. In civil judgement it would be better to take professional advice of experts for the im-portant cases than to introduce the american jury system. Through the verdict with the judges or independently of them, these specialists would adjudicate upon the certain civil cases. Anyway it should be ensured to stand trial of the judges who have been appointed on a constitutional base.