ABSTRACT
This paper studies mixed tribunals, a form of lay participation in which professional and lay judges decide cases jointly. The focus of the analysis is the interaction of professional judges and lay judges in tribunals that decide criminal cases in two regions of Croatia. The respondents in this study were professional judges and lay judges, as well as ‘the observers’ of the trials by mixed tribunals, that is, state attorneys and attorneys. A theoretical framework far the study of interaction of the members of mixed tribunals is developed by applying status characteristics theory. Lay judges ask questions during trials only infrequently; lawyers (professional judges, state attorneys, and attorneys) perceive that those questions are not very important. Lay judges are only sometimes given an opportunity to ask questions during trials. Deliberation typically starts with the summation of evidence by the professional judge. Consistent with the findings about the trials, the comments offered by lay judges during deliberations are perceived by professional judges to be minor, both in regard to frequency and importance. Disagreements between professional and lay judges occur rarely. Lay judges very rarely outvote professional judges. All of the findings are consistent with status characteristics theory.
