'Like an ugly duckling': Jury trials shunned by judges, prosecutors and victims alike

A judge presiding over a fraud trial at the Seoul Central District Court on July 9 looked to the defendant and asked, “Did you intend to request a jury trial?”

The defendant looked at their court-appointed attorney in confusion. They had a brief discussion with the attorney and then withdrew the request.

“No. I requested it because I didn't really understand what it was,” the defendant said.

Eighteen years after their launch in Korea, jury trials are still struggling to gain traction, with many defendants requesting them without understanding the system and even later withdrawing their applications.

Interest in the system briefly grew after former Gyeonggi Vice Gov. Lee Hwa-young's first-instance perjury trial in June became the longest Korean jury trial on record, lasting 10 days. Former President Moon Jae-in also requested a jury trial in his bribery case.

But defendants also frequently withdraw requests for a jury trial after realizing they did not fully understand the process. Judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys also tend to avoid the proceedings because of the additional burden they impose.

First launched in January 2008, jury trials were introduced after years of debate to democratize the judiciary.

There were more than 300 jury trials in 2013, but the number steadily declined to around 100 in 2018 and then down to double digits since 2020. Last year, jury trials accounted for just 0.34 percent of all eligible criminal cases.

One reason for the low number is the system's strict eligibility requirements. Under current law, jury trials are limited to serious criminal cases that are ordinarily heard by a bench of three judges. The case can move to a jury trial only if the defendant requests one and if the court finds no reason to reject the request. Reasons for exclusion from jury trial include instances where judges feel a jury trial may not be appropriate, such as sex crimes and complicated financial crimes.

Requiring a defendant to initiate the process has proved to be a fundamental limitation. Over the past 18 years, only 3.6 percent of eligible cases have resulted in requests for jury trials.

Low awareness keeps requests down

A lack of awareness among defendants stands as a key reason for the low request rate. A total of 48.3 percent of defendants surveyed who did not request a jury trial said they did not do so because they did not understand the system, according to the Korean Institute of Criminology and Justice's 2019 report.

The same report found that 52.8 percent of defendants surveyed who withdrew their requests said they withdrew them because they did not understand the system.

“There were cases in which defendants requested a jury trial without fully understanding the system and later withdrew the request after hearing explanations from their attorney or the court,” a presiding judge at the Seoul Central District Court said.

Even if a request for a jury trial is made, courts exclude about one-fourth of the cases. The most common reason, accounting for 54.9 percent of exclusion decisions, is that the court finds that a jury trial would not be appropriate.

“There were cases that made us curious about how ordinary people might view the issues,” another presiding judge said. “But sex crime cases have to be excluded to protect victims' privacy, while financial crimes such as embezzlement and breach of fiduciary duty were considered unsuitable because they involved enormous case records and highly technical legal disputes.”

Worth the resources required?

Some judges remain skeptical because of the heavy demands the system places on judicial resources.

“A jury trial is an inefficient form of trial that requires an enormous amount of resources for a single case,” another presiding judge said. “However, it helps jurors better understand the courts and strengthens public trust in the judiciary, so we accept that trade-off. Ultimately, the issue is how to allocate limited judicial resources.”

One jury trial was found to require between 3.7 and 7.6 times as much judicial workload as a standard criminal trial, according to a 2014 analysis commissioned by the National Court Administration.

Despite the downsides, many judges continue to see value in the system.

“Jury trials are difficult to conduct when court backlogs are severe because they require us to sacrifice time that could be devoted to other cases, but they also provide valuable insights from the perspective of nonlawyers,” another judge said.

Others described the system as a “useful way to strengthen the judiciary's democratic legitimacy and one that reflects broader social changes.”

“Jury trials are like an ugly duckling,” another judge at a district court in the Seoul metropolitan area said. “If properly nurtured, they could become a swan. But they have been neglected for the past 18 years.”

New perspectives have value

Some also argue that the system encourages a traditionally conservative judiciary to better reflect social change.

“Courts often try to decide cases within the framework of past precedents and can be slow to reflect changes in society,” said attorney Kwon Hyuk-geun, who represented the defense in the 2011 jury trial involving the hijacking of the Samho Jewelry ship by Somali pirates.

“That can result in decisions that differ from the public's sense of justice, and jury trials are a very useful way to address that,” Kwon added.

Others emphasize the system's educational value.

A freelance writer surnamed Kim who served as a juror for a trial in July last year said, “I felt an enormous sense of responsibility because we were deciding a person's future.”

While it was difficult to understand some of the legal terminology, Kim “realized judges genuinely try to reach fair decisions and even invite ordinary people to hear their views when they face difficult questions.”

The judiciary also sees expanding jury trials as one way to restore public trust.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said in his New Year's address in January that the Supreme Court would “prepare various measures to revitalize jury trials to further enhance the public's understanding and trust in judicial proceedings and enable courts to communicate more directly with the public.” Cho also made the same pledge in his New Year's address last year.

BY CHOI SEO-IN, JO SU-BIN, KIM YE-JUNG [[email protected]]