Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design:
The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants
Setsuko Kamiya *1 Introduction
It has been over a decade since ordinary

disciplines including sociology, psychology, andJapanese citizens began to participate inforensic linguistics.3 Personal accounts of people

criminal trials as decision makers under the

who have exercised this new civic duty havesaibanin seido, or the lay judge system, wherebeen also been published, including those ofin principle, six lay judges and threeacademics. 4 However, studies on the spatial

professionally trained judges participate

aspects of courtrooms in lay judge trials are

together on the bench to decide the facts aboutscarce, even though that there are salient,a crime and mete out a sentence should theyvisible differences between lay judge and1find the accused guilty. Figures from theconventional, judge-only trials.5 For example, inSupreme Court of Japan show that as of theconventional trials overseen solely by

end of November 2020, 13,625 cases had been

professional judges, prosecution and defense

tried under the system, 76,765 citizens had

attorneys simply stood at their seats behindserved as lay judges, and 26,058 more had

their tables when addressing the court orserved as alternate lay judges since the firstquestioning witnesses, but they are now seencase was tried in August 2009.

2

Civic

moving from their desks to the witness stand,participation in the criminal trials that had

which faces the bench, when they make their

been handled by legal professionals for seventy

arguments. Another striking visible change

years has various effects, not only on the trialthat has occurred is the seating arrangement ofproceedings but also on people’s perception of

the defendant, which differs significantly fromthe justice system and their mindsets. Thus,

conventional trials. In this paper, I attempt tothe lay judge system has been examineddemystify the Japanese lay judge courtroom

extensively, especially in the field of law, andenvironment and explain how the new setting

has also become a new area of study in otherhas shifted trial participants’interactions in the* Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies, the University of Tokyo
キーワード：Saibanin seido, lay judge, civic participation, courtroom design, trial performance

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants

65

courtroom, including its underlying dynamics. Iof the Japanese criminal courtroom, both thoseargue that the inclusion of citizens on judicial

used for judge-only and lay judge trials after

panels as lay judges has spurred changes in thereviewing literature that examines courtroom

ways that people interact in the courtroom, andlayout and its correlation with people’sthat this is reflected in the use of space in theinteractions. Based on the analysis of two lay

courtroom, the available equipment, and how

judge trials observed at the Tokyo District

they are used by participants. Among the

Court and interviews with legal professionals

changes observed, this study focuses on how

and lay judges, this study then examines two of

the inclusion of lay judges has changed where

the new features and layout introduced to theother courtroom participants stand or sit whenlay judge courtroom – the bench and thea trial is in progress. My hypothesis is that theseating of the defendant - and the effects theseentry of lay people into the courtroom aschanges have had on the interactions among

decision makers working alongside professional

trial participants. The analysis of the two trials

judges has triggered a need to apply new

was conducted by applying the dramaturgicaldesign principles and arrangements to theapproach outlined by Erving Goffman (Goffman,conventional courtroom, and that this new1959). Through this examination, this study

setting has affected the performance of trial

aims to show that the design of the courtroom

participants.

and the use of its environment must be taken

To investigate this hypothesis, this paper

into consideration to further understand theprovides an overview of the structural design

structural dynamics of lay judge trials in Japan.

2 Literature review
2.1 Existing studies on courtroom design and participant interactions
In the international context, courtroom

the American Institute of Architects jointly

design and people’s interactions have beenstudied the country’s traditional courtrooms,

studied from various perspectives, from thewhich stemmed from the colonial days, as thedesign and symbolism of the buildings to thecountry started to implement several design

geopolitics of the trial. 6 For example, in thevariations (Wolfe 1995, 594). Architect Allan

United States, studies on courtroom design andGreenberg wrote that courtroom arrangement

the proxemics of trial participants and theiris “the reflection of society’s view of theeffect on jury perception have existed since theappropriate relationship between the accused

1960s when the American Bar Association andand judicial authority” and stressed the66

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

importance of taking such symbolic aspects ofinnocence until proven guilty, and thethe judicial system into account when planningdefendant’s right to a fair trial (Ibid., 472-474).

a courtroom’s layout (Greenberg 1976, 422-426).

According to this study, similar arguments

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Wolfe argued thatwere made concerning Australian courts incourtrooms whose designs are based on such2007 by defense lawyers of Muslim men who

architectural standards tend to overlook thewere charged for conspiring to commit

specific demands of advocacy in a trial. In his

terrorist attacks; the judges in both cases

study involving mock trials, Wolfe concluded

exercised their authority and ordered thethat an attorney’s location in the courtroom

removal of the glass, or the“layer of prejudice”

affects jury perception and thus stressed theto secure a fair trial (Ibid., 483-489).

need for courtrooms to reflect adversarial

Some studies from the United States havedesign criteria, as this could improve thealso compared criminal trials with theaters. For

quality of advocacy (Wolfe 1995, 593-656). These

example, in his research on the impact of non-studies cast light on the complexity ofverbal communication on jurors’decision-

courtroom design.

making, Peter Murphy directly acknowledged

Studies on the location of the defendant’s

the similarities between the two.“Both have aseat and its influence on jurors have been

stage, a set, a certain degree of costuming, andconducted in Australia, where the dock is

unfolding drama…. Moreover, there are many

placed in different parts of the courtroom and,theatrical exercises and techniques, well known

in some cases, surrounded by glass walls or

to actors, which can benefit trial lawyers in themetal bars. Blake McKimmie, Jillian Hays, andtechnical development of their professional

David Tait found that a courtroom’s design, as

courtroom skills, such as voice production andwell as the specifics of the dock design, caneffective public speaking”(Murphy 2002, 111).

affect jurors’perceptions of the defendant,

Meanwhile, Milner Ball, who also wrote about

including his or her guilt and the seriousness ofthe theatrical aspects of the courtroom,

the crime with which he or she has been

additionally argued that the presence of thecharged (McKimmie, Hays, and Tait 2016, 885-

audience, which is essential to a live theater

892). Tait, in a separate study, overviewed theperformance, is equally important in courtroom

history of the dock and the use of handcuffs

action. He claimed that the audience in criminal

and body belts (Tait 2011, 467-495). He pointed

trials are not only regarded as a safeguard forout that American courts abolished the dock as

ensuring fair trials to defendants and monitor

it infringed on the defendant’s right to counsel,

the proceedings but they also“help the active

the dignity of the accused, the presumption ofparticipants keep their perspective, thereby

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants

67prompting them to perform their proper roles”

argued that the entire courtroom outside the(Ball 1975, 86). In another example, in his essay

jury box that is visible to the jury, including thediscussing the prejudicial effects of courtroom

spectators, has significance (Ibid., 343-346).

design on jurors, Denis Brion argued that the

Despite the existence of such examinations ofcriminal trial is a“complex form of theater”

spatial practice overseas, however, somethat“consists of two distinct yet interrelated

researchers who have undertaken such studies

theatrical productions that are directed toward

have claimed that the significance of courtroom

two distinct audiences for two different

architecture or design on the performance of

purposes”(Brion 2014, 343-344). He referred tocourtroom players has been overlooked

the two as“formal theater”and“real theater”

academically. According to Linda Mulcahy, the(Ibid.). The former is a public ritual, whose

reason for the lack of such research“can infunction is to“announce to the community atpart be explained by lawyers’obsession withlarge the purpose of the criminal process,the word,”as studies of the law center on thewhich is to reinforce the commitment of thewritten judgment or transcript“as though theysociety to the principles of due process and thegive a complete account of why a case isRule of Law”(Ibid.). The stage actors are thedecided in a particular way”(Mulcahy 2011, 3).

trial participants – the judge, the accused, theShe criticized this notion as preventing theprosecution and defense lawyers, the witnesses,

acknowledgment that spatial dynamics can

the bailiff and other officials, and the jury –influence judges’rulings and public opinion ofwhile the audience members are the spectators

the judicial process (Ibid.). Moreover,and journalists attending the trial (Ibid.). The

McKimmie et al. pointed out that the lack ofaudience completes the ritual by confirming

studies on courtroom design and seating is due

and internalizing the implicit message conveyed

to the fact that courtroom design is relatively

by the act of conducting the trial (Ibid., 343). On

uniform within a jurisdiction (McKimmie, Hays,

the other hand, the“real theater”functions toand Tait 2016, 885-886).

“determine the meaning of the events that

These observations are interesting

form the basis of the charges against thearguments when applied to the Japaneseaccused,”namely, the verdict of guilty or notcontext. The assumption that studies on trials

guilty (Ibid., 344). In“real theater,”the main

and the court system tend to focus on written

performers are the trial council and judge, andtranscripts and judgments may also be true inthe audience is the jury, and the principal stage

Japan, but the fact that criminal trial

includes all the area inside the courtroom

proceedings have been handled solely by legal

except the jury box (Ibid.). However, Brion

professionals could also have been a major

68

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

contributing factor to the lack of inquiry into

witness testimonies that are entered by boththe courtroom environment. Satoru Shinomiya

the prosecution and defense in an open court

noted that“Japanese courtrooms have not been

(Shinomiya 2009, 98-101). In other words, how

a subject of different scientific research fields,

the prosecution and defense lawyers performed

despite the fact that the courtroom isin front of the judges was not traditionally afundamentally a place where people persuade

matter of utmost importance. Indeed, it wasothers,”because judges have developed andcommon to see prosecutors and defense

maintained a particular trial practice centeredlawyers read out written opening statements at

on a reliance on documents (Shinomiya 2009,high speed, and the questioning of witnesses by

107). Traditional trial proceedings conducted

neither council was necessarily well structured.

solely by legal professionals have been more of

Meanwhile, some judges have been seen

a formality. In general, the trial process hasreading documents entered as evidence while

been centered on submitting court documents

the questioning was taking place in front ofand affidavits as evidence, and the judges would

them. Shinomiya argued that such courtroom

take them back to their chambers and readpractices have deprived councils of thethem carefully before deciding their rulings,

opportunity to perform their duties and haveeven though the Japanese Criminal Procedurenegatively affected their courtroom

Law stipulates that judges must decide on thepresentation and lawyering skills (Shinomiya

facts of a case based on the evidence and2009, 100).

2.2 Existing studies on Japanese courtrooms
Even before the lay judge system wasprosecution and defense (Yamada, Sasaki, andintroduced, court building architecture andMiura 2014). They paid attention to the factcourtroom design were understudied in Japan,that in some courts, the location of the seating

except for few studies in the field ofof the prosecution and defense are situated onarchitecture that examined the history of

the opposite sides. In their experiment, which

Japanese court buildings. Other existing

tested the theory that people tend to favor thestudies examining the Japanese courtroom

side of their dominant hand, they found thatenvironment have been conducted in the fieldright-handed participants tended to lowerof psychology, in which Yuki Yamada, Kyoshiro

sentences by one year on average when the

Sasaki, and Kayo Miura investigated thedefense was seated on the right side of thepossible link between the judge’s dominantcourtroom, and indicated the need to consider

hand and the seating locations of the

aspects of space cognition in courtroom design

7

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants69

(Ibid.). Other existing studies were conducted inforeign defendants or witnesses the impression

the field of court interpretation. In her study onthat the interpreters are on the side of thethe relationship between court interpreters andcourt authority and that this could hinder them

their clients during trials, Masako Mourifrom winning the trust of the defendants (Ibid.,

examined the location of court interpreters in

232-235). Mouri’s argument focused on theJapanese criminal trial courtrooms, both in lay

theoretical definition of the interpreter in ajudge and judge-only trials (Mouri 2013, 225-

courtroom setting and described the existing236). Mouri pointed out that the court

manners of spatial practice, but it is an example

translators in Japan tend to be seated next tothat reads into the link between spatial settings

the court clerk, facing the witness stand where

and how people’s perceptions of others are

the foreign defendant or witnesses are seatedaffected by them. While these two studies are

during questioning (Ibid., 231). Such anvaluable observations of courtroom settings, thearrangement, she noted, is made by the courts

present study more closely examines how

with the intention of ensuring the safety of thepeople communicate in that environment, andinterpreters (Ibid.). Meanwhile, in the United

how design influences their interactions. To do

States, court interpreters are seated next toso, this study applied Erving Goffman’sthe defendant requiring interpretation

dramaturgical framework (Goffman, 1959) toassistance (Ibid., 232). Mouri argued that

illustrate which changes lay participants havealthough Japanese court interpreters interpret

brought to the remodeled criminal courtroom

the verbal interactions of everyone involved insetting and to the performances of its

the trial while maintaining their impartiality,

participants.

the current seating arrangement may give

3 Methods
3.1 Research framework
The theatrical metaphor laid out by Goffman“fronts,”which function to define the situation

provides a framework to study the interactions

for the audience (Goffman 1959, 22). Thisof people in the courtroom, which is a public

involves the“setting,”including“the furniture,forum in a peculiar setting where people

décor, physical layout, and other backgroundcommunicate to decide the fates of individuals.

items which supply the scenery and stage

Goffman describes every person as deliberately

props for the spate of human action played out

or unintentionally employing various visual

before, within, or upon it”(Ibid.). A setting

70

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

tends to be fixed so that“those who would use

the“back stage”or“back region”where thea particular setting as part of their performance

performers can relax and be themselves andcannot begin their act until they have broughtplan and prepare for their performances (Ibid.,themselves to the appropriate place and must

106-140). Goffman also pointed out that, liketerminate their performance when they leave

theater, a performance takes place on theit” (Ibid.). Goffman also labeled other“front stage”or in the“front region,”where

performance elements as“personal fronts,”

the actors formally perform before an audience

which he futher divides into“appearance”andand adhere to standard appearances and“manner”(Ibid., 23-24). Appearance portrays

behaviors that have certain effects or meanings

the performer’s social status or the temporary

for the audience (Ibid., 107-108). The front stage

state of their role, whether he or she isis also where performers use impression

engaging in formal social activity, work, ormanagement techniques and try to put on theirinformal recreation. Examples include badges

best performances. On the other hand, theof office or rank, clothing, gender, age, racial“back stage”or“back region”is where“thecharacteristics, size, and attractiveness (Ibid.).

suppressed facts make an appearance”(Ibid.,

Manner refers to how a performer plays the111-112). Back stage, the actors can relax,role and serves to warn the audience of therevert to their own selves, and they may

interaction he or she is willing to display, such

behave differently from their formal

as being aggressive or apologetic (Ibid.).

performances, because they know that others

Goffman argued that performance can also becannot see them (Ibid., 112-113). The back stagestaged by a team, or any set of individuals in

is usually separated from the front stage by arelation to an interaction or series ofpartition and a“guarded passageway,”andinteractions, to express the definition of a social

impression management calls for controlling

situation before their audience. A team mustthe audiences’access to this area (Ibid.).

keep the nature of their cooperation secret

Goffman stressed that impression managementfrom the audience to ensure that theiris crucial to any performance, and to

performance is effective (Ibid., 104-105).

successfully defend the show, performers need

Goffman noted that performance also often

to express “dramaturgical loyalty,”

involves the cooperation of a team and that the“dramaturgical discipline,”and“dramaturgicalsuccess of a performance usually depends on

circumspection”among their teammates (Ibid.,separating the space in two, creating the“front

208-228). At the same time, Goffman noted,

stage” or “front region” where theselecting a tactful audience who can use

performance is delivered for the audience andtechniques to save the show is equallyJapanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants

71important to successfully managing impressions(Levenson 2008, 574-575). While they

(Ibid., 229-233).

acknowledge that formal evidence plays an

The dramaturgical perspective has been

especially important role in criminal trials,

applied as an analytical framework in various

various factors, including people’s locations,studies on the justice system, including studies

appearances and events that take place in the8

on social interactions in courtrooms. The

courtroom can affect the verdict, and such aarguments made by those studies that apply

possibility needs to be considered to ensure athe dramaturgical framework to the analysis offair trial (Ibid., 581-583). While the effect of non-courtroom interactions, as well as those thatverbal interactions on the decision-making ofobserved the theatrical elements of thelay and professional judges is not within the

courtroom, seem to challenge the“sanitizedscope of my research, I share their view thatview” that the courtroom is a “controlled

c o u r t r o o m s e t t i n g s a n d p e o p l e’s social

laboratory” where “the attorneys presentinteractions are important elements to criticallyevidence, the judge supervises for quality

understand how our justice system works. My

control, and the jurors give the results of theobservation of the two trials focused on theexperiment; there is little room for emotions orsetting of the courtroom and the people’sactions whose impact cannot be predicted”

interactions in relation to that setting.

3.2 Data collection
The main data collection methods used in

the cases were chosen at random. While thethis study include observations and semi-

online calendar lists the crimes with which thestructured interviews. With the aim ofaccused is charged, the names of theidentifying the interactions during the court

defendants are not publicized. It was only on

proceedings, I observed two lay judge trials

the first day of the hearings that I could

which took place at the Tokyo District Court inconfirm the defendants’names and genders,

Chiyoda Ward in July and September 2016. The

and their statuses as defendants (i.e., whether

two cases were chosen from the calendar ofthey were in custody or had been released onhearings on the Tokyo District Court’s website,bail). Thus, while statistics show that mostwhich is usually made available approximately

defendants are men in these cases, both

9

one month in advance. The selection criteria

defendants were women.10 The two defendants

were that I could attend the hearings and thatwere accused of different crimes, and their

the cases were held in different courtrooms andstatuses as defendants differed: one had beenpresided over by different judges. Otherwise,

released on bail, and the other remained in72

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

custody. Between these two trials, I also visitedparticipated in the interviews, and snowball

the court to observe other conventional

sampling was used to recuit participants. Lay

criminal trials to compare and confirm thejudges are prohibited from discussing thedifferences between conventional, judge-only

contents of the trial deliberations, therefore, mytrials and lay judge trials.11

interviews centered on what occurred in the

As the use of all recording devices andcourtroom and did not involve elements thatcameras is prohibited in the courtroom, thecould infringe upon their confidentiality

process of gathering data was limited to note-obligations.12

taking. I documented in my field notes the

My questions to the legal professionals

entire trial process with a focus on thecentered on their courtroom performance

movements and actions of the participants,

before and after the introduction of the lay

courtroom design, and non-verbal interactions.

judge system. I also questioned them about theBased on these field notes, I listed thecourtroom setting, their views related to theinteractions and extracted the movement

bench, how they utilize the newly installed

patterns of people and things and thedevices, courtroom seating, and patterns

interactions that I observed in the two

related to the lay judge trials I had observed incourtrooms. These patterns were identified in

the two court cases. My questions for the lay

comparison to conventional judge-only criminal

judges also touched on their experiences withtrials.

the courtroom setting and their observations

To confirm the patterns observed in the lay

regarding the courtroom performances of thejudge trials and to understand the changes inlegal professionals. Although they play a central

participants’performances, I conducted semi-role in all courtroom proceedings, thestructured interviews with judges, prosecutors,

defendants were not included in this study, as

and defense attorneys who had experience in

it is difficult to interview people on trial or

criminal trials prior to the introduction of thelocate those who have been defendants underlay judge system. In addition, to understandthe lay judge system. Finally, in addition to the

how lay judges experience a trial in terms ofobservations and interviews, I also gathered

the new layout and participant performances, I

data from books, newspapers, journals, andinterviewed people who had previously served

websites and made inquiries to the Supremeas lay judges. Two persons from each category

Court of Japan for this study.

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants73

4 Results
4.1 Courtroom design
This section discusses the courtroom design,

courtroom doors. For example, a citizen

both for judge-only trials and lay judge trials.

observing a criminal trial will have access to

Court facilities in Japan are structured

the courtroom from the hallway for the public

according to standards compiled by theand the parties involved. There are two doors

Department of Maintenance of the Financial

to the courtroom. One has a sign on the door

Bureau of the Supreme Court Generalthat reads “Entrance for Prosecution and

Secretariat. The Saibansho chōsha sekkei kijun,

Defense Attorneys” (kensatsukan/bengoninor Court Facilities Design Standards and theiriguchi) and the sign on the other door reads

Saibansho chōsha sekkei hyōjunzu or Court“Entrance for the Audience” (bōchōnin

Facilities Standard Plan include requirements

iriguchi). The door for the legal professionals

for the courtroom space and ceiling, furniture,leads them to the courtroom well and thethe number of seats in the gallery, and otheraudience’s door leads to the gallery area.

design requirements as well as the lighting andUpon entering the courtroom, one will noticeelectrical distribution systems.13 Thus, while thea bar separating the gallery from the seating

appearance of court buildings may differ

space for trial participants. Once seated in thedepending on the district, the interiors of all

gallery, audience members face the judge’scourtrooms are standardized.

bench, which in turn faces the audience. In

Japanese Supreme Court officials havefront of the judge’s bench, at the same level as

previously stated that one of the mostthe rest of the participants, is the desk of theimportant elements of courthouse design iscourt clerk who also sits facing the audience.

controlling the flow of people, as various people

Between the court clerk and the bar is thehave access to the court and hearings are open

witness stand, which faces the judge’s bench.

to the public (Kitamura 1962, 72-73, Miwa 1974,

Meanwhile, the desks of the prosecution and

1-5). This is especially true for in-custody

defense are seen facing each other on either

defendants who are brought to the courtroom

side and are located toward the center of thethrough a door that connects to the inner

well where the witness stand is. The

corridor, to which the public or the parties

defendant’s seat, which is often a couch, isinvolved have no access to (Ibid.). Moreover,usually located in front of the defense lawyer’sthis is partly reflected in the location of thedesk. A model criminal courtroom for judge-

74

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

Figure 1. A conventional criminal trial courtroom with three judges. The participants inthe photos are as follows: 1. judges, 2. court clerk, 3. stenographer, 4. court secretary(bailiff), 5. prosecutor, 6. defense attorney, and 7.defendant.
Source: Supreme Court of Japan, Saibansho nabi . (2017) p7. Photo used with permission fromthe Supreme Court of Japan.

only trials and a typical floor plan are shown in

Ideally, he said that the defense should be

Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

seated on the inner side of the courtroom so

At the Tokyo District Court, the side thethat in-custody defendants can be seated asprosecution or the defense sits on is not fixed.

soon as they step into the courtroom from theIn other words, in one courtroom, theinner door; such an arrangement also helps toprosecution could be seated at the desk on the

keep the defendants at a distance from theinner side of the courtroom and the defense

hallway for security reasons. However, if

could be on the side near the hallway, whereas

circumstances exist in which it is better for thein another courtroom, their positions could beprosecution to be seated on the inner side ofreversed. As some parts of the standard

the courtroom, such as allowing a victim who

documents were undisclosed, it is unclear

will testify behind a screen to enter from thewhether this issue has a written rule. However,inner door so that she can be kept out of sightaccording to one of the judges interviewed forof the audience, the presiding judge can decide

this research, the presiding judge ultimately

to make such an arrangement and place thehas the authority to decide on which sides ofdefense on the hallway side.“The decision […]the courtroom the prosecution and defense sit.

is based on what is more reasonable under theJapanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants

75

Figure 2. A model floor plan of a criminal trial courtroom for judges-only trials Source:
Department of Maintenance of the General Secretariat, the Supreme Court of Japan. Saibansho
chōsha sekkei hyōjunzu or the Courtroom Building Design Standard. For security reasons,parts of the floor plan were undisclosed, seen here as blotted out in black. Translation of
the original Japanese document was prepared by the author.

circumstances,”the judge said.14

Another prominent new courtroom feature

In terms of where the desks are situated, theincludes monitors. Five small 15-inch monitors

courtrooms used for lay judge trials generally

are installed on the bench and two large 65-

have a similar structure to the conventionalinch monitors are installed on the walls behindcriminal courtrooms just described above.

and above the seats of the prosecution andHowever, many unique features are installed,

d e f e n s e , a s s h o w n i n F i g u r e 5 . 18 O t h e respecially for lay judge trials. The mostcommunication devices are also present in theprominent difference is the judges’bench,courtroom, such as a document camera andwhich is a curved table long enough totablet that are primarily used at the witness

accommodate nine people. The length of thestand to display evidence on the monitors. At

bench seems to vary depending on the size ofthe same time, recording devices including

the courtroom, but it is typically 7.5 meters tovideo cameras and microphones for speech

8.8 meters long.

15,16

The bench is raised 35

recognition systems are used to record thecentimeters above the other participants, but it

questioning of the witnesses and the defendants

is 10 centimeters lower than the conventionalso that the lay and professional judges canbench.17 A typical lay judge trial courtroom andreplay the recordings during their deliberations

floor plan are shown in Figures 3 and 4,

if necessary (Koshinaka, Emori, and Onishi

respectively.

2010, 47-49).

76

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

Figure 3. A model view of a lay judge courtroom. Those depicted in the photo are as follows: 1.
judges, 2. lay judges, 3. court clerk, 4. prosecutor, and 5. defense attorney. Source:
Supreme Court of Japan, Saibanin seido nabigēshon , (2019) p.9. Photo used with permission
from the Supreme Court of Japan.

Figure 4. A model floor plan of the lay judge mock trial courtroom, which was made in oneof the courtrooms at the Tokyo District Court. Source: Department of Maintenance of theGeneral Secretariat, the Supreme Court of Japan.Saibansho chōsha sekkei hyōjunzu or the
Courtroom Building Standard Plan. Translation of the original Japanese document was preparedby the author.

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants77

Figure 5. A lay judge courtroom in the Saitama District Court is seen from the bench. Small
monitors are installed on the curved bench and the desks of the public prosecutors and thedefense. The witness seat has a touch screen. Two large monitors, one of which appears on
the wall, are installed in the courtroom. Source: Supreme Court of Japan, Saibanin seido
nabigēshon . (2019) p.48. Photo used with the permission of the Supreme Court of Japan.
lowered by 10 centimeters compared to
The Supreme Court explained that arched

conventional criminal courtrooms to reduce

benches enable professional and lay judges topressure on the defendant (Kobayashi 2004). As

see each other’s faces and make eye contact,

of September 1, 2016, 151 layjudge courtrooms

while allowing a natural view of the witnesses

had been established in 50 district courts andand defendant when they are on the witness

10 district court branches across the country.20

stand.19 It also explained that the bench was

4.2 New bench
As previously mentioned, one of the mostsee how wide it became compared tonotable and unique features of the lay judge

conventional courtrooms. 21 The former lay

courtroom is the bench, which is a wide, curved

judges, on the other hand, said it was the heighttable facing the front of the bar and audience.

of the bench that caught their attention.22 TheWhen asked about their first impressions of theprofessional judges in fact acknowledged thatbench, the legal professionals interviewed all

the raised bench is one of the questions often

expressed that they were initially surprised toasked by the lay judges, but they expressed

78

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

that what mattered most was that the level oftake their seats. The court

the eyes between the judges and the witnesses

secretary then enters theand defendants when they take the witness

courtroom from the same door

stand, are on the same level.

and looks across the room at theIn the two cases studied, the entry to thecustodians and asks them tobench by the lay and professional judges

unlock the handcuffs. The threeoccurred in a specific order, and this wasstand, with the defendant facing

repeated every time that the members of thethe female custodian who unlocks

bench returned from recess. The ritual-likeand removes the handcuffs. The

entry of the members of the judicial panel canmale custodian from behindbe considered one of their first teamwatches the process with his backperformances. The following excerpt from mytoward the audience. When thefield notes from the in-custody defendant casehandcuffs are removed, the threedescribes the typical entry of the defendant

sit down again. The female

and the members of the judicial panel:custodian puts the handcuffs

23

The door inside the bar andaway.

near the prosecution’s seats

After confirming that the

opens, and two custodians bringhandcuffs were removed, thethe defendant into the courtroom.

court secretary goes out the door

One of the custodians, a male,again. He then returns to theleads the way, followed by the

courtroom immediately, this time

defendant in handcuffs and acalling out to the courtroom:

female custodian who holds the“Please rise.”As everyone rises,

belt that encircles the defendant’sthe door next to the bench opens,waist and is connected to theand the presiding judge appears

handcuffs. They walk across theand steps up to the raised bench

floor, and when they reach theand stands in front of his seat indefense’s seats, the female

the middle. Following thecustodian loosens and removes

presiding judge is the senior

the belt, which is connected to theassociate judge, who sits on his

handcuffs that remain on theleft, and the lay judges, who enter

defendant. The female custodian

one after another and stand incontinues to hold the rope as they

front of their seats. Two

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants

79alternates follow and walk to their

Instead of bowing, the custodiansseats behind the lay judges. The

both salute.24

junior associate judge, who enters
last, closes the door and walks to

The seating arrangement and the order ofher seat next to the presiding

entrance into the courtroom by the lay andjudge. Once everyone is in place

professional judges are shown in Figures 6 andand facing the courtroom,7, respectively.

everyone bows, then sits down.

In fact, entry to the courtroom is rehearsed

Figure 6. The seating arrangement of the participants of the trial of the in-custody
defendant. The presiding judge (PJ) sits at the center of the bench. The senior assistantjudge (SJ) and junior assistant judge (JJ) sit next to the presiding judge; they are
sandwiched by the lay judges (LJ), who sit on both sides of the bench. The court clerk (C)sits in front of the bench. Alternate lay judges (A) are seated behind the bench. Meanwhile,
the prosecutors (P) are seated on the right side, with the lawyers representing the victims(VL) seated behind them. The defense lawyers (L) are seated on the left side, with thedefendant (D) next to them, with the custodians(G) sitting beside her. The court secretary,or the bailiff, is not shown in this diagram.

80

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

Figure 7. The order of entry of lay and professional judges for the trial of the in-custody
defendant. This order was preserved throughout the trial.

prior to the opening of the trial. According torevealed that they are most concerned about

the interviewed judges and lay judges, it is partwhether their lay counterparts are followingof the orientation they go through that takes

the proceedings or not. They acknowledged

place once the lay judges are selected andthat the curved bench in fact provides a goodsworn in. The judges claimed that the reason

view of the entire bench. Thus, if they spot athey have an assigned order is to secure aclueless expression on a lay judge, they aresmooth entry, although there is no order in theable to stop the person questioning and ask him

exit as each individual has their own pace toor her to elaborate because it isn’t cleargather their belongings.

enough. The judges said they also check to see

During the hearings, the judges in the two

if anyone is looking sleepy or feeling ill.

cases were occasionally seen to look at both

The bench is the only setting that faces thesides of the bench, and the judges interviewed

entire courtroom; thus, the nine-judge panel,

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants

81who sit in a line, always seems to perform as a

towards the bench. However, the prosecutors

team, with the presiding judge taking

and defense lawyers in the two cases

leadership and moving the proceedings

independently took that position when they

forward. Meanwhile, the prosecutors andaddressed the bench for the opening statements

defense lawyers of the cases observed all wentand closing arguments. The position taken by

to stand in front of the witness stand and faced

the prosecutors and the defense lawyers took

the bench when they made their arguments.

to address the bench in the in-custody

As the witness stand is set up in the center

defendant case is shown in Figure 8.

and faces the bench, it inevitably puts the

Since lay judge trials resort to live oral

person who is called to the stand to face

performances than documents, prosecutors andFigure 8. The prosecutors(P) and defense lawyers(L) moved from their seats and stood infront of the witness stand and faced the bench as they made their opening statements andclosing arguments.

82

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

defense lawyers need to mobilize their

the prosecutors observed during the two cases.

communication skills. Interviewees noted

This contradiction among those in the same

several skills they considered important were,

profession may be a reality for other legal

in consideration of their location when

professionals, as the judges and the lawyers

addressing the bench, making eye contact andacknowledged that some defense lawyers

gestures, and using visual aids and vocal cues.

hesitate to come to the center and face the

Lawyers interviewed mentioned that it wasmembers of the bench. According to the two

encouraged among the defense lawyers tolay judges, the defense attorneys in their cases

position themselves in the center of thealso moved to the witness stand and faced thecourtroom to address the bench, and thebench to address them. The prosecutors madeprofessional judges interviewed were also intheir opening statement from their seats, butfavor of this practice. One of the judges

for the closing argument, one of them moved

mentioned a practical need, claiming thatfrom her seat and stood in front of the witness

speaking from the center allowed the person’sstand and addressed the bench without a script

voice to reach the bench equally, thereby

and looked them in the eye while speaking.

making sure the message could be received byThis indicates that how to perform in front of

all members seated there. Meanwhile, thethe bench in lay judge trials is still being

prosecutors interviewed denied this as aworked out by legal professionals regardless ofstandard practice of the prosecution, which

their roles in the bar.

stands in contradiction to the performances of

4.3 Defendant’s seating arrangement
Although the presence of the two custodians

the witness stand, which made them face theon either sides of the in-custody defendant was

judges, an arrangement that was common innotable, it has become a regular practice in lay

pre-war criminal courtrooms that separated

judge trials for defendants to be seated next todefendants from their lawyers.

their attorneys in lay judge trials. In bench

According to one of the lawyers interviewed,

trials in the Tokyo District Court and mostwhether their client is seated in front of themothers, however, it has been common practiceor next to them makes a big difference for thethat the defendant’s seat is situated in front ofdefense attorney. When the defendant is seatedthe defense council’s seat. Until recently, as thein front of him or her and he or she needs tojudges interviewed noted, some judges evencommunicate with them during the trial, thehad the defendant sit on a bench located behindlawyer explained, he or she must tap them onJapanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants

83the shoulder to make them turn around, if it isthrough an acrylic wall during the lawyer’surgent, or wait until recess to communicate

visits to the detention facility. The wall hinders

with the client. In some cases, the client willsmooth communication and the lawyer said

turn around to speak to their lawyer, but notthat at such times he has no choice but to press

all defendants are courageous enough to do so.

evidence that he wants to show his clients

Comparatively, having the defendants sit next

against the transparent wall.

to their lawyers makes it much easier toIndeed, the defense lawyers in both observed

communicate. This lawyer cited many benefits

trials were seen to show their clients the copiesof this seating arrangement:of the handouts provided by the prosecution
upon giving their arguments. They also shared

It really makes me feel that wewith their clients a slide presentation on theare working on the case together.

monitor in front of them. When he left his seat

For example, even though

to make his opening statement in front of theevidence is shown on the large

witness stand, the defense lawyer for the in-monitor [where the defendant cancustody defendant left a handout for his client

see it], we can look at it together

to see. Her lawyers seemed to communicate

on the monitor in front of ourmore frequently than the lawyers in the otherdesk. It also allows me to ask

case who came to the courtroom with their

them something like, “Is thisdefendant in the other case, which suggests

true?” in writing during thethat they might agree with the interviewed

hearing. It’s become much easier

lawyer’s assessment of the difficulties of

to communicate in many ways.[…]communicating during detention center visits.

Even giving a pat on the shoulder

These examples demonstrate how this seating[to comfort the accused] becomesarrangement enables lawyers and defendants

easier when they are seated next

to work as a team.

to me.25

Having defendants sit next to their lawyers
in the presence of lay judges is in fact the fruit

This seating arrangement is especiallyof negotiations between lawyers, the courts,

significant when it comes to in-custodyand the Ministry of Justice prior to thedefendants, because the courtroom is the only

introduction of the lay judge system. The Japan

opportunity lawyers have to meet their clientsFederation of Bar Associations (JFBA) had

directly without having some sort of barrier

pushed for the Supreme Court and the Ministry

between them. Until that point, they speakof Justice to allow defendants to be seated next84

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

to their lawyers, an argument that someattempts (Ibid., 160-161). In the end, after heateddefense lawyers had been making for nearlynegotiations, the Supreme Court and thetwenty years (Takano and Kanaoka 2007, 106-

Ministry of Justice acquiesced to the JFBA’s112). The JFBA claimed that the conventional

demands, on the condition that thiscourtroom arrangement, with the defendantarrangement would be limited to lay judge

either facing the judge behind the witness

trials and only when the presiding judge

stand or seated in front of the defense lawyers,

approved the seating arrangement. The

could prejudice lay judges against the accused,

Ministry of Justice drew up a concrete plan on

adding that in-custody defendants should also

how to seat the defendant (Ōguchi 2010, 29-33).

be seated without guards (Aoki 2013, 157-169).

The plan carefully states that one of the

They also stressed that having their clients sit

custodians “must sit right next to thenext to them was necessary to facilitate

defendant, while the other custodian, who sits

communication during hearings (Ibid., 160-161).

closer to the lawyers, will place their seat about

The Ministry of Justice, which oversees thea shoulder width away from and half a seat

treatment of in-custody defendants, argued thatbehind the defendant” (Ibid., 29-30). The

having guards sit on either side of the

Ministry also notified detention officials not todefendant was necessary to prevent escapeseat the defendant close to the bench (Ibid., 31-

Figure 9. A diagram that explains the“standard seating locations”of the custodians when
seating the accused in a lay judge trial. Source: Ōguchi Yasuo,‘Saibanin seido no sutāto
to kyosei no jitsumu - Saibanin saiban no hōtei ni okeru hikokunin no kaigo’. Keisei, 121:1(2010), p30. Translation of the original Japanese diagram prepared by the author.

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants8533). A diagram illustrating this arrangement isseated on the bench, but side-by-side seating

shown in Figure 9.

also had the consequence of allowing lawyers

Thus, the new seating arrangement for theand defendants to communicate and smoothly

defendants partly derived from the intention towork together as a team, thereby ensuring a

reduce potential prejudice among lay judges

better team performance.

4.4 The dynamics of the lay judge courtroom setting and participant performance
In this study, the analysis of the two cases

cases attended, the defendants were seated

and the interview data showed that the court

next to their lawyers, although the in-custodyenvironment has indeed been adjusted fromdefendant had two custodians seated on either

that of judge-only trial courtrooms, primarily inside of her. In judge-only trials, defendants are

consideration of the lay judges who are now

generally seated in front of their lawyers. It

audience members of the performances given

was confirmed during the interviews that thisby the other trial participants. The courtroom

new arrangement is the result of negotiations

features that were confirmed as unique to lay

among the judicial circle and was implemented

judge courtrooms can be largely divided intowith the intention of reducing anti-defendant

those that relate to location and communication

prejudice in the courtroom; however, it is left

devices. The present study focused on theup to the defense lawyer to seek thisformer, which include the wide bench, a setting

arrangement. Having the defendant sit next todesigned to place the lay judges in a location

his or her lawyers facilitates communication

where they can be seated alongside theirbetween the members of the defense andprofessional counterparts. The performances ofallows them to work as a team, which was

the members of the bench, such as their entry

demonstrated in the two trials observed in thisto the courtroom, as well as their questioning

study. Thus, although the new features of layof the witnesses and defendants were orderly

judge courtrooms were installed or arranged

and well-planned. The interviews confirmed

for different reasons, they serve a common

that these team performances were the result

purpose: to set the stage for the lay judges toof rehearsals and coordination backstage, withwork with the professional judges as effective

the presiding judge playing the role of thedecision makers. This consequently brought“director”and ensuring that everything goes

benefits to defendants, who are now allowed tosmoothly (Goffman 1959, 97).

be seated next to their lawyers.

Another new courtroom feature was theseating arrangement of the defendant. In both86

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

5 Conclusions
Civic participation in criminal trials hasmonitors and slide presentations. The results ofbrought various changes to the Japanese

this study demonstrate that the courtroom

criminal justice system, but its impact to theenvironment alone has many aspects to becourtroom design and the interactions haveunderstood. Goffman’s argument that the

been overlooked. This study addresses thissetting is part of the performance proved to beresearch gap by demystifying the courtroom

true as dramaturgical analysis clarified that thedesign and identifying its underlying dynamics

environment, including the locations of its

by analyzing two trials using Erving Goffman’sparticipants and objects, influence people’sdramaturgical approach and interviews withactivities within a social setting and should

legal professionals and former lay judges. While

therefore be considered. There is much about

this research looked into the courtroom and thethe lay judge courtroom to be studied frompractice of legal professionals, it was also an

various perspectives, including the field ofobservation of how ordinary citizens havemedia and communication studies that may

changed a system that was long run bylead to the improvement of the issues andexperts, especially in terms of how theychallenges observed in this study. Studying thecommunicate in a particular setting. The

courtroom and people’s interactions fromanalysis introduced in this paper, which focusedvarious disciplines will help open the justiceon the new bench and the seating arrangement

system further to public understanding andof defendants, showed that such new settingspromote greater transparency.

that were primarily established for the lay

This study has several limitations. First,

judges have influenced the performances of the

because videotaping or audio recording islegal professionals who continuously strive toprohibited in the courtroom, the only means ofimprove their communication skills in therecording data during the trials was taking

courtroom. The new arrangements also seem

field notes, which has obvious restrictions. I

to benefit the defendant to some extent, but it

tried to observe and carefully note down as

is important to note that such positive change

many elements of the courtroom and trial

can be observed only by the eyes of the lay

process as possible, but it was impossible tojudges and not necessarily by the spectators, as

record everything that went on when so muchthe timing of removing the handcuffs indicate.

was occurring simultaneously. Second, althoughSome other courtroom elements also needs

I was able to interview legal professionals andfurther investigation, such as the use offormer lay judges who are not necessarily

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants

87normally accessible, the sample size was small

further. Despite these limitations, it is hoped

and as the interviewees indicated, opinions

that the information contained in this study will

regarding some of the new practices still differ

provide useful data and ideas that further oureven among those in the same profession, andunderstanding of how civic participation can

this requires further consideration. Whilebring about changes in our legal institutions, as

courtroom practice does not change very

well as in people’s behaviors, mindsets, andrapidly, more data need to be gathered fromsurrounding environments.

recent court hearings to investigate the findings

謝辞This research was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research(B) from 2018 to 2020: Grant
Number JP18H03343.

The author would like to thank Professor Shin Mizukoshi at the Interfaculty Initiative in Information

Studies, The University of Tokyo, for his support, and the interviewees who participated in this research.

註
1Article 2 of the Lay Judge Law also stipulates that the court can decide to rule a case with four lay judges and a single
professional judge if no dispute concerning the charges and facts of the case exists and other circumstances deem it to besuitable.

2

S upreme Court of Japan, Accessed January 20, 2021. https://www.saibanin.courts.go.jp/vc-files/saibanin/2020/r2_11_
saibaninsokuhou.pdf.

3For example, see Matsumura, Kinoshita, and Ota (2015), Mishima (2015), Okada, Fujita, and Naka (2009), Shiraiwa (2019), andHotta (2009). Makino, Oshiro and Ii (2019) and Oshiro, Sakagami and Fukuda (2019) are among the works that look back at thefirst ten years of the system.

4See Taguchi (2013) and Ii and Saiban-in Lounge (2019) for the personal accounts of those who served as lay judges. Papers
published by academics on this subject include Uemura (2013) and Shimomoto (2018).

5

A few practical materials on trial advocacy by defense lawyers show some interest on courtroom space, such as the Japan
Federation of Bar Associations (2009), Takano (2011), and Yahata, Tsuji, and Endo (2009).

6

For example, see Resnik and Curtis (2011), Mulcahy (2011) and Dahlberg (2016) .

7

Notable studies on the history of Japanese courtroom buildings include Hosono (2000, 2004) and Zaidan Hōjin Shihō Kyokai (1995,
1997).

8

Goffman’s front stage/back stage framework has been applied in various studies on criminal justice system settings, from thecontext of policing to racial discrimination in the decision-making process and restorative justice settings. See Portillo et al. (2013,1-22). The framework has also been used for studies on civil trial juror’s decision making. For example, see Rose, Diamondand Baker (2010, 310-323).

9

On May 2, 2016, the Supreme Court of Japan announced on its website that the schedule for lay judge trials would now beavailable on the website of each district court, a move that seems to be the judiciary’s response to growing public interest in
the new system.

10	Ministry of Justice statistics show that in the 2015 fiscal year, 371,459 people were indicted, among which 14,867 were female
defendants. See Ministry of Justice (2016).

11

My previous reporting experiences of criminal trials mainly at this courthouse have also contributed to my observations.

12

Supreme Court,“Saibanin seido Q&A.”

88

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

13

	The two documents, 裁判所庁舎設計基準 and 裁判所庁舎設計標準図 in Japanese, which were compiled in April 1995 butreflect updates from December 2006, were obtained by the author in February 2017 from the Supreme Court using a judicial
administration information disclosure request. Several pages of the documents were undisclosed due to security reasons andwere blotted out in black. The official standard floor plan for lay judge courtrooms could not be found in the design standard
except for the one shown in Figure 4. It could have been included in one of the pages that were not disclosed. However, thecurrent lay judge courtrooms look basically the same as this diagram.

14

Interviewed on July 28, 2016.

15

	The width of the bench for the lay judge courtroom built at the Yamagata District Court in 2007 was set at 7.5 meters.
Yomiuri Shinbun (2007).“Saibanin muke hōtei kansei chisai Yamagata.”Dec. 2. Meanwhile, the width of the bench is set at 8.8
meters in the layjudge courtroom in the Fukui District Court, which is the largest courtroom in Japan. Saibansho nabi Fukui
Vol.6. 2007. http://www.courts.go.jp/fukui/vcms_lf/105006.pdf.

16	When the new lay judge courtrooms were finished, district courts promoted them on their websites, with detailed descriptionsof the new features. An example can be seen in the Sendai District Court Website (2007).“Saibanin saibanyō hōtei no shōkai”
Accessed October 29, 2017. http://www.courts.go.jp/sendai/about/koho/hoteikansei/index.html.

17

Ibid.

18

Ibid.

19

The Supreme Court’s response to an inquiry made by this author in September 2016.

20

The number of courtrooms was provided to the author by the Public Affairs Office of the Supreme Court in September 2016.

21

	One judge recalled thinking“it was going to be challenging to see us all as one and move the trial forward,”while anothernoted that he was initially concerned that the width might intimidate whoever takes the witness stand; however, he no longer
believes this to be frue.

22	One lay judge said that because their view was raised he wondered where he should be looking during the trial, while theother lay judge said“it was higher than I thought.”

23	However, their exit from the bench did not seem as organized. What did seem like a pattern, however, was that the juniorassociate judge always opened the door for the lay judges and then alternates to retire in a random order, followed by thesenior associate judge and presiding judge.

24

Notes taken on the second day of this trial held in September 2016.

25

Notes taken during an interview in September 2016.

参考文献
Aoki Kazuko 青木和子 . 2013.“Hikokunin no chakuseki ichi, fukusō”被告人の着席位置、服装 . In Jitsumu taikei gendai no keiji
bengo 2: Keiji bengo no gendaiteki kadai 実務体系現代の刑事弁護 2 刑事弁護の現代的課題 , edited by Goto Akira, Takano
Takashi and Oka Shinichi 後藤昭、高野隆、岡真一編 , 157-169. Tokyo: Daiichi Hōki 第一法規 .
Ball, Milner S. 1975.“The Play’s the Thing: An Unscientific Reflection on Courts Under the Rubric of Theater.”Stanford
Law Review 28:81-115. Accessed November 16, 2017. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/
stflr28&div=13&id=&page=.
Brion, Denis J. 2014.“The Criminal Trial as Theater: The Semiotic Power of the Image.”In Law, Culture and Visual Studies,edited by Wagner, Anne and Richard K. Sherwin, 329-359. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media. DOI 10.1007/978-90481-9322-6_16.
Dahlberg, Leif. 2016. Spacing Law and Politics: The Constitution and Representation of the Judicial. London; New York:
Routledge.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
Greenberg, Allan. 1976.“Selecting a Courtroom Design.”Judicature 59（9）:422-426. Accessed November 19, 2016. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/judica59&div=107&id=&page=.
.“Raising‘Temples of Justice’: Why Does the Modern Court Fall Short?”Judicature 59（10）:484-490. Accessed November 19,

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants89

2016. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/judica59&div=121&id=&page=.
Hosono Koji 細野耕司 . 2000.“Tokyo saibansho no sōsēki ni tsuite: Wagakuni no kindaishi hōkenchiku ni kansuru shiteki kenkyūsono 1”東京裁判所の草創期について：我が国の近代史法建築に関する史的研究その 1. Nihon Kenchiku Gakkai keikakukei
ronbunshu 日本建築学会計画系論文集 Number 65 Vol. 532: 223-230.
. 2004.“Meiji shoki shihō shisetsu no keisei ni okeru kaigai shisastsu noeikyō ni tsuite: Wagakuni no kindai kenchiku ni kansuru
shiteki kenkyū sono 2”明治初期司法施設の形成における海外視察の影響について：我が国の近代司法建築に関する史的研究その 2. Nihon kenchiku gakkai keikakukei Ronbunshū 日本建築学会計画系論文集

Number 69 Vol.585. 161-168.

Hotta Shugo 堀田秀吾 . 2009. Saiban to kotoba no chikara: kotoba de meguru saibanin saiban 裁判とことばのチカラ：ことばでめぐる裁判員裁判 . Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobō ひつじ書房 .
Ii, Takayuki and Saiban-in Lounge 飯考行・裁判員ラウンジ . 2019. Anatamo asu wa saibanin!? あなたも明日は裁判員 !? Tokyo:
Nippon Hyōronsha 日本評論社 .
Japan Federation of Bar Associations. Ed. 日本弁護士連合会編 2009. Hōtei bengo gijutsu dai 2 han 法廷弁護技術第 2 版 . Tokyo:
Nippon Hyōronsha 日本評論社 .
Kitamura Shogo 北 村 正 五 . 1962.“Onkyō keikaku 音 響 計 画 ”In“Aru tatemono ga kansei surumade – Tokyo chihō saibansho
honchōsha no kōji kiroku kara ある建物 が完成するまで−東京地方裁判所本庁舎の工事記録から .”Kenchiku gijutsu 建築技
術 .Vol. 127: 72-73.
Koshinaka Takafumi, Emori Tadashi and Onishi Hiroshi 越中孝文・江森正・大西祥史 . 2010.“Saibanin saiban muke onsei ninshiki
shisutemu”裁判員裁判向け音声認識システム . NEC Gihō NEC 技報 Vol. 63:47-49
Kobayashi Nao 小林直 . 2004.“Saikōsai mogihōtei wo secchi – Saibankan to saibanin yokoichiretsu ni narabi”最高裁模擬法廷を設置—裁判官と裁判員、横一列に並び . Mainichi Shimbun 毎日新聞 August 6.
Levenson, Laurie L. 2008.“Courtroom Demeanor: The Theater of the Courtroom.”Minnesota Law Review 92:573-633. Accessed
May 24, 2016. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mnlr92&div=21&id=&page=.
Makino Shigeru, Oshiro Satoshi and Ii Takayuki. Eds. 牧野茂・大城聡・飯考行編 . 2019. Saibanin seido no jūnen: Shimin sanka no
igi to tenbō 裁判員制度の 10 年

市民参加の意義と展望 . Tokyo: Nippon Hyōronsha 日本評論社 .

Matsumura Yoshiyuki, Kinoshita Manako, and Ota Shōzo. Eds. 松村良之・木下麻奈子・太田勝造編著 . 2015. Nihonjin kara mita
saibanin seido 日本人から見た裁判員制度 . Tokyo: Keisō Shobō 勁草書房 .
McKimmie, Blake M., Jillian M. Hays, and David Tait. 2016.“Just Spaces: Does Courtroom Design Affect How the Defendant is
Perceived?”Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 23（6）:885-892. Accessed June 12, 2017. DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2016.1174054.
Ministry of Justice 法務省 . 2016.“Hanzai Hakusho”犯罪白書 . Accessed November 10, 2017. http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/63/
nfm/n63_2_4_6_2_1.html.
Mishima Satoshi. Ed. 三島聡編 . 2015. Saibanin saiban no dezain: Shimin no chi ga ikiru saiban o mezashite 裁判員裁判の評議デザ
イン：市民の知が活きる裁判をめざして . Tokyo: Nippon Hyōronsha 日本評論社 .
Miwa Hajime 三輪甫 . 1974.“Osaka kōtō chihō kani Saibansho chōsha: Sekkei ni atatte 大阪高等・地方・簡易裁判所合同庁舎 設計
にあたって .”Kenchiku to shakai 建築と社会 Vol. 55: 1-5.
Mouri Masako 毛 利 雅 子 . 2013.“Kuraianto tono kankei kara miru hōtei tsūyakunin: Tsūyakunin no hōteinai ichi ni kansuru
ichikōsatsu”クライアントとの関係から見る法廷通訳人 – 通訳人の法廷内位置に関する一考察 . Journal of Inquiry and Research
関西外国語大学研究論集 97:225-236.
Mulcahy, Linda. 2011. Legal Architecture: Justice, Due Process and the Place of Law. London; New York: Routledge.
Murphy, Peter W. 2002.“‘There’s No Business Like…?’: Some Thoughts on the Ethics of Acting in the Courtroom.”South
Texas Law Review 44:111-125. Accessed November 16, 2017. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/
stexlr44&div=16&id=&page=.
Okada Etsunori, Fujita Masahiro, and Naka Machiko. Eds. 岡田悦典・藤田政博・仲真紀子編 . 2009. Saibanin seido to hōshinrigaku
裁判員制度と法心理学 . Tokyo: Gyōsei ぎょうせい .
Ōguchi Yasuo 大口康郎 . 2010.“Saibanin seido no sutāto to kyōsei no jitsumu - Saibanin saiban no hōtei ni okeru hikokunin no
kaigo”裁判員制度のスタートと矯正の実務〜裁判員裁判の法廷における被告人の戒護 . Keisei 刑政 121（1）:26-36.
Oshiro Satoshi, Sakagami Nobuyuki and Fukuda Takayuki 大 城 聡・ 坂 上 暢 幸・ 福 田 隆 行 . 2019. Anata ga kaeru saibanin seido:

90

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

Shimin kara mita shihō sanka no ima

あなたが変える裁判員制度：市民からみた司法参加の現在 . Tokyo: Dōjidaisha 同時代社 .

Portillo, Shannon, Danielle S. Rudes, Jill Viglione, and Matthew Nelson. 2013.“Front-Stage Stars and Backstage Producers:
The Role of Judges in Problem-Solving Courts.”Victims & Offenders 8（1）:1-22. Accessed November 19, 2017. DOI:
10.1080.15564886.2012.685220.
Resnik, Judith and Dennis Curtis. 2011. Representing Justice: Invention, Controversy, and Rights in City-States and Democratic
Courtrooms. New Haven; London:Yale University Press.
Rose, Mary R., Shari Seidman Diamond, and Kimberly M. Baker. 2010.“Goffman on the Jury: Real Jurors’Attention to the‘Offstage’of Trials.”Law and Human Behavior 34:310-323. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-009-9195-7.
Shinomiya, Satoru 四宮啓 . 2009.“Saibanin seido to hōtei gijutsu: Sono rinen to arikata”裁判員制度と法廷技術：その理念とあり方 .
In Saibain seido to hōshinrigaku 裁判員制度と法心理学 , edited by Okada Etsunori, Fujita Masahiro and Naka Machiko 岡田悦典・藤田政博・仲真紀子編 , 98-108. Tokyo: Gyōsei ぎょうせい .
Shimomoto, Etsuko 下本英津子 . 2018.“Saibanin no keiken wo tōshita kizuki: Saibanin keikensha no kiroku to intabyū kara”裁判員の経験を通した気づき – 裁判員経験者の記録とインタビューから . Seikatsugakuronsō 生活学論叢 33:45-56.
Shiraiwa, Yuko 白岩祐子 . 2019.“Risei”he no tsuikyū: Saibanin toshite no shimin no jitsuzō「理性」への希求：裁判員としての市民の実像 . Kyoto: Nakanishiya ナカニシヤ出版 .
Supreme Court of Japan 最高裁判所 .“Saibanin seido Q&A 裁判員制度 Q&A.”Accessed October 26, 2017. http://www.saibanin.
courts.go.jp/qa/index.html.
_. 2016. Saibaninseido Nabigēshon, Kaiteiban 裁判員制度ナビゲーション改訂版 .
_. 2016. Outline of Criminal Justice in JAPAN 2016. Accessed June 2, 2017. http://www.courts.go.jp/english/vcms_lf/Outline_
of_Criminal_Justice_in_Japan_2016.pdf.
_, Department of Maintenance of the General Secretariat 最高裁判所事務総局営繕課 . 1995. Saibansho chōsha sekkei hyōjunzu 裁
判所庁舎設計標準図 . Updated in 2006.
_, Department of Maintenance of the General Secretariat 最高裁判所事務総局営繕課 .1995. Sabansho chōsha sekkei kijun 裁判所
庁舎設計基準 . Updated in 2006.
Taguchi Masayoshi 田口真義 . 2013. Saibanin no atama no naka: 14 nin no hajimete monogatari 裁判員のあたまの中：14 人のはじめて物語 . Tokyo: Gendai Jinbunsha 現代人文社 .
Tait, David. 2011.“Glass Cages in the Dock?: Presenting the Defendant to the Jury.”Chicago-Kent Law Review 86（2）:467-495.
Accessed June 29, 2017. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.jp/&httpsredir=1&article=3793&context=cklawreview.
Takano Takashi and Kanaoka Shigehiro 高野隆・金岡繁裕 . 2007.“Bengonin no tonari ni suwaru kenri: SBM undō no igi to jissen”
弁護人の隣に座る権利：SBM 運動の意義と実践 . Quarterly Keiji-Bengo 季刊刑事弁護 52:106-112.
Takano, Takashi. Ed. 高野隆監修 . 2011. DVD de manabu saibanin saiban no tameno hōtei gijutsu（kisohen）DVD で学ぶ裁判員裁判のための法廷技術（基礎編）. Tokyo: Gendai Jinbunsha 現代人文社 .
Uemura, Hideki 植村秀樹 . 2013.“Saibanin taikenki: Chiba chihō saibansho no itsukakan”裁判員体験記：千葉地方裁判所の五日間 .
Ryūkei Hōgaku 流経法學 13:135-173.
Wolfe, S. Jeffrey. 1994.“The Effect of Location in the Courtroom on Jury Perception of Lawyer Performance.”Pepperdine
Law Review 21:731-776. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/
pepplr21&div=42&id=&page=.
_ . 1995. “Toward a Unified Theory of Courtroom Design Criteria: The Effect of Courtroom Design on Adversarial
Interaction.”American Journal of Trial Advocacy 18:593-656. Accessed November 1, 2016.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/

LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/amjtrad18&div=34&id=&page=.
Yahata Hiroshi, Tsuji Takashi and Toyama Daisuke 八幡紕芦史・辻孝司・遠山大輔 . 2009. Genjin Keiji bengo shirīzu 12 Nyūmon
hōtei senryaku: Senryakuteki hōtei purezentēshon no riron to gijutsu GENJIN 刑事弁護シリーズ 12 入門法廷戦略：戦略的法廷
プレゼンテーションの理論と技術 . Tokyo: Gendai Jinbunsha 現代人文社 .
Yamada Yuki, Sasaki Kyoshiro and Miura Kayo 山田祐樹・佐々木恭志郎・三浦佳世 . 2014.“Hō to shinrigaku: Hōtei haichi tokikite ga umidasu ryōkei handan baiasu 法と心理学：法廷配置と利き手が生み出す量刑判断バイアス .”The 12th Conference

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants

91

for Japanese Society for Cognitive Psychology, Poster Session, Session ID P3-29 日本認知心理学会第 12 回大会ポスター発表 .
Accessed May 25, 2017. https://doi.org/10.14875/cogpsy.2014.0_128.
Yomiuri Shimbun 読売新聞 . 2007.“Saibanin sei he chisai isshin: Kaishu nadoni 300 okuen, kyūnin narabu hōdan, hanketsu giron no
hyōgishitsu

裁判員こう座る

法廷配置、最高裁が原案

裁判官の両側に 3 人ずつ .”April 16.

Zaidan Hōjin Shihō Kyōkai 財団法人司法協会 . 1995. Saibansho kenchiku no ayumi: Meiji/Taisho/Showa/Heisei 裁判所建築の歩み 明治・大正・昭和・平成 . Tokyo: Shihō Kyōkai 司法協会 .
_. 1997. Saibansho kenchiku no ayumi: Sengo umare no saibansho 裁判所建築の歩み - 戦後生まれの裁判所 . Tokyo: Shihō Kyōkai
司法協会 .

神谷

説子 ( かみや・せつこ )［専門］メディア論、メディア・リテラシー、ジャーナリズム［主たる著書・論文］“The Media in Decay: The Asahi Shimbun Fiasco and the Anti-Asahi Hysteria”『5: Designing Media Ecology』（03）76-84, 2015 年『世界の裁判員 -14 カ国イラスト法廷ガイド』、共著、日本評論社、2009 年。
［所属］東京大学大学院情報学環［所属学会］日本マス・コミュニケーション学会、日本教育メディア学会、法と教育学会

92

東京大学大学院情報学環紀要

情報学研究

№100

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design:
The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants
Setsuko Kamiya*

Since its introduction in 2009, the impact of citizen participation in criminal trials under Japan’ssaibanin seido, or the lay judge system, has been studied from various perspectives except on how it
has influenced the courtroom layout and people’s interactions within it. This study fills this researchgap by demystifying the courtroom design and identifying its underlying dynamics by analyzing
two trials using Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical approach and semi-structured interviews withlegal professionals and former lay judges. This paper provides an overview of the structural designof the Japanese criminal courtroom, both those used for judge-only and lay judge trials. Based on
the observations of two lay judge trials at the Tokyo District Court and the interviews, this paper
focuses on the analysis of the wide bench and the seating arrangement of the defendant and theeffect these changes have had on the interactions among trial participants. The study results showedthat lay participation triggered the need to apply new arrangements to the conventional courtroom,
which in turn have evoked new performances from trial participants. The new features of lay
judge courtrooms were installed or arranged for different reasons but with a common purpose: to
set the stage for the lay judges to work with the professional judges as effective decision makers.
Consequently, these changes have benefited defendants, who are now allowed to be seated next totheir lawyers during trials.

* Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies, the University of Tokyo
Key Words：Saibanin seido, lay judge, civic participation, courtroom design, trial performance

Japanese Lay Judge Courtroom Design: The Effect of Civic Participation on Trial Participants

93