Persistent Anomaly - The Lay Judge in the American Legal System

• NCJ Number: 79081
• Journal: Justice System Journal Volume: 6 Issue: 1 Dated: special issue (Spring 1981) Pages: 28-43
• Author(s): D M Provine
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 16 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The bar and judiciary's continuing acceptance of lay judges in State court systems and research on differences in lay and lawyer judges' adjudication are examined.

Abstract

Justices of the peace staff courts of limited jurisdiction across the Nation, where they adjudicate minor traffic and criminal law violations and small civil claims. In part, the bar tolerates lay judges because most practitioners have little contact with them, since the jurisdictional limits on civil claims are usually too low to justify representing either civil plaintiffs or defendants, and the criminal docket typically includes only misdemeanors and traffic matters. The cost of replacing lay judges with lawyer judges is a practical reality that discourages policy change. The appellate bench has also been generally accepting of lay judges, as State appellate courts have tended to reject arguments by criminal defendants that adjudication by a lay judge violates constitutional principles. The U.S. Supreme Court, in North v. Russell (1976), also refused to abolish lay judges on Federal constitutional grounds. The absence of a vigorous movement to eliminate lay judges by statute or amendment indicates they will survive for the indefinite future. Empirical evidence on differences between lay and lawyer judges is meager and inconclusive. No research has found convincing evidence that lay judges are less aware of the criminal defendant's basic constitutional rights to counsel, notice, and hearing than lawyer judges. Neither can it be safely concluded that lay persons, whether jurors or judges, are consistently more lenient than lawyers. More systematic information about the attitudes, role perceptions, and decisionmaking of lay judges needs to be gathered before the impact of lay judge in contrast to lawyer judge adjudication can be properly assessed. Five footnotes, a list of cases cited, and 43 references are included.