Permalink : http://hdl.handle.net/2115/38943

The purpose of this paper is through analyzing the content of the Hungarian jury system under the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy using a comparative method to consider the significance of it among the jury systems of the Continental European countries, and to show the orientation of further studies. At the end of the nineteenth century, the jury system was introduced into Hungary. Around this time, the other European Continental countries gradually abandoned this system or changed it into the form called "Lay Assessor's Court" in which lay jurors and professional judges discussed the cases together. The defects or shortcomings of the jury system had become apparent despite the passion for this system as a guardian of human liberty and rights around 1848. At this time, the question arose as to why Hungary introduced the jury system and how was it? Looking for clues to understand the Hungarian jury system of this time, the author pays attention to the fact that this system was often introduced in Austrian and German legal journals at that time. Apparently Austria, the former ruler and since 1867 partner in the Habsburg Empire, had influenced Hungary also in the field of lawmaking processes although Hungary had not always been willingly prepared to accept the Austrian legal system, which had been forced on Hungary against its own traditions. Such delicate relation between Austria and Hungary also reflected the legislating action of the Hungarian jury system when we read the articles in the Juristische Blätter, a representative Austrian law journal, or follow the lawmaking process. In contrast to the Austrian legal system, German law was the typical model for Hungary. In both of the two conflicting criminal schools, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft and Der Gerichtssaal, we find articles about the Hungarian jury system from the time of its commencement. For the Hungarian contributors, the German legal journals were the media not only to spread information about the domestic legal system internationally, but also to gather various opinions from lawyers of the so-called "Country of Mother Law". This could be recognized from the fact that since the 1840s, the Hungarian reformers of law had visited authoritative German jurists, among them the famous criminologist, Carl Joseph Anton Mittermaier, who was to give advice about legislation. Then the author examines the contents of the jury system on the basis of three laws: the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 33 of 1896, the Jury Law No. 33 of 1897 and the Law for Enforcement of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 34 of 1897. According to the Law of 1897 No. 34, trial by jury was applied when it related to felonies and partly related to printed matter offenses. In Hungary, trials by jury were used to a less extent than in other European countries for felonies and libel cases, when applying Law No. 34 of 1897. However, critics advocated gradual increase in the number of jury trials. Nevertheless the author pointed out the difficulty of confirming the number of the trials by jury because the statistical materials about this system are not unified. From Law No. 33 of 1897, we see the qualification, and selection procedures of jurors. Like other Continental European countries, Hungary limited the qualification of a juror through property and education. People who are engaged in certain occupations could be excluded or be freed from being a juror. The stipulations about these areas in Hungary were more similar to Austrian law than to German. Taking the excluding reasons into account, first the basic list for juror candidates was drawn up in each "varmegye" (county) or city district, and then the annual list in the royal court under the participation of "bizalmi ferfi" (reliable people), who were supposed to be neutral and detouched from government. In reality, these people were chosen from landowners, lawyers, and on the whole, intellectuals. Because of various kinds of limitations and procedures, the number of juror candidates on average is supposed to remain small: In Heves county, for example, it was only 3% of the inhabitants. Also, the strong influence of the Minister of Justice was one of the marked characteristics of the Hungarian jury system. As for the procedure in a public trial the author examines the manner of oath taking, court structure, instructions and verdicts, where the Hungarian system depended on a German and Austrian system. In conclusion we recognize the political motivation, such as exclusion of ethnic minorities, in the introduction of the jury system into Hungary. On the other hand, we should not forget that principles such as the independence of judges and the separation between administration and jurisdiction were affirmed in Hungary. Therefore future research should not only criticize the jury system of that time, but also form a cool assessment of the jury system itself.