A court in the South Korean port town of Daegu on Tuesday held the country’s first ever trial by jury – part of a judicial reform aimed at making Korean justice more transparent.

Until now, both criminal and civil cases in South Korea have been tried before a tribunal of judges, who delivered both verdict and sentencing.  The majority of Asia’s judicial systems use this model, as do many in Europe.

Under judicial reforms passed by the South Korean parliament in 2007, only certain serious crimes - such as murder, rape, or assault and battery - can be tried by jury. Sunday’s tragic incident in which an arsonist burned down Seoul’s treasured Namdaemoon Gate, for example, will not be tried by jury. 

Tuesday’s case, however, was eligible for a jury trial because it involved a 27-year old man who robbed and assaulted a 70-year old woman in her home.  No civil cases are to be tried under a jury, unsurprising in a generally non-litigious nation.

Jury trials part of broader judicial reform

The reforms are an effort to modernize a legal system left over from decades of authoritarian rule. South Korea held its first democratic presidential election in 1987, and the country’s lawyers have been pushing for reform of the legal system too.

“The judicial system has been calling for greater transparency in the criminal trial process,” says Sean Hayes, an American law professor working in Seoul. Another factor behind the change is that most South Korean legal scholars conducted at least part of their education in the United States, Hayes says, and have been trying to implement aspects of the US legal system – including jury trials - for years.

Unlike in the United States, verdicts by Korean juries will be advisory, however, not binding. The juries will consist of nine, seven or five members, who will select a decision by majority vote. The judge in the case will take the jury decision into account, but has the power to make the final decision. “The Korean constitution specifically says that everyone must be tried by a judge,” explains Hayes, adding that giving juries full decision-making powers would therefore require a constitutional amendment.

But Hayes is not worried that the jury’s advisory status will render them useless. The types of cases that would be put before juries are typically very public cases, he says. “If the jury gives a guilty verdict, the judge is going to have overwhelming pressure to agree.” In general, the hope is that the transparency the new system provides would make public opinion part of the judicial process.

Sympathy for a self-confessed robber

In Tuesday’s case, the defendant admitted robbing the older woman, but said he did so because he and his younger sister needed money to pay debt collectors who were threatening them. The prosecution urged the jury to apply the law regardless of the young man’s predicament, and the defence argued for leniency. In the end the jury voted unanimously to find the man guilty but set aside the 30-month jail sentence. The judge accepted the jury’s recommendation.

To train for the new US-style trial system, says Hayes, lawyers and judges attended a self-fashioned boot camp, visiting US courtrooms and sitting in on trials. The steepest learning curve was for prosecuting attorneys. “Under the old system, prosecutors mainly read official documents.  They didn’t have to present cases or tell stories. So to prepare for speaking before a jury, some prosecutors trained with acting coaches.”