Civil Jury Trials in Japan & Lessons from the United States: Examining the U.S. System and Its Significance, Its Function, and Modern U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Civil dispute resolution plays a vital role in shaping society. In all societies, most civil disputes are resolved without filing a lawsuit. To the extent that a dispute cannot be resolved through informal means, an injured person or entity may seek formal legal relief or remedy from another in a court of law. In common law systems, lay citizens are often enlisted to take an active role in the dispute resolution process. In resolving disputes and administering justice, the value of lay participation is widely recognized in many respects. In contrast, in civil law systems, citizen participation is largely alien to civil dispute resolution, particularly civil litigation. In recent years though, many civil law countries have started recognizing the value of lay participation in a variety of contexts. In Japan, the idea of citizen involvement in the judicial process gained greater acceptance over the past decade. On May 21, 2009, Japan implemented its saiban-in seido or “lay judge system” as part of monumental legal reforms designed to encourage civic engagement, enhance transparency, and provide greater access to the justice system. About eight years before this historic day, a special governmental committee known as the Justice System Reform Council (“JSRC”) set forth wide-sweeping recommendations for revamping Japan’s judicial system. The underlying goals targeted three pillars of fundamental reform, namely: (i) a justice system that is “easier to use, easier to understand, and more reliable;” (ii) a legal profession “rich both in quality and quantity;” and (iii) a popular base in which citizens’ trust in the legal system is enhanced through their participation in legal proceedings. The JSRC viewed the judicial system as an engine capable of propelling societal change. In turn, it believed that lay judge participation could function as a piston in this engine by helping shift Japan away from centralized control and heavy bureaucratic regulation. Lay participation was consistent with the perceived need for Japanese citizens to not only break away from excessive dependency on the government, but also to develop greater civic consciousness, become more actively involved in public affairs, and better integrate community values into the justice system. Due to these recommendations, Japan now conscripts registered voters to serve on tribunals comprised of lay citizens and professional judges in serious criminal actions. Since its inception in 2009, Japan’s lay judge system has attained relatively high praise and acclaim from lay judges, the public, observers, and even governmental officials. Although the lay participation system has its weaknesses and faces ongoing challenges, it has been quite effective on many fronts. Consequently, the idea of lay participation is gradually finding favor in Japan.Because lay participation in the judicial process has started taking root in Japanese society, it is an ideal time to look at expanding lay participation into select areas within the civil realm. Such an extension would be consistent with the goals underlying recent legal reforms. Additionally, Japan could further increase accountability, enhance democratic engagement, generate positive societal change, and fully achieve the objectives of its recent monumental legal reforms by introducing citizen participation into the civil and administrative litigation process. Greater citizen involvement might include alleged serious torts, environmental disasters, governmental misconduct, administrative dispositions, and other disputes having the greatest impact upon society. This could conveniently take the form of a mixed lay judge trial model currently employed by Japan, or even involve the all-citizen jury familiar to the United States. By examining other legal systems, a country can learn about different practices and determine whether they would benefit society and assist in the administration of justice. As Japan’s lay judge system continues to develop, much can be learned and even borrowed from the jury systems and practices of other countries. In fact, Japan can look to the United States experience to assess positive outcomes and potential pitfalls with respect to civil lawsuits. This may be particularly helpful given that that the United States is the most prolific country in using civil jury panels. To help facilitate this exercise, this paper will examine the all-citizen American jury trial system to provide a picture of the potential lessons that Japan might apply to its own system. More specifically, it will explore the function and significance of the U.S. civil jury trial system as well as U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have helped shape the right to a trial by jury. It will also address the negative perceptions and criticisms of civil jury trials.