CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF JURY FUNCTIONING: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Abstract

In contemporary constitutional law, citizen participation in the administration of justice through jury and lay judge institutions is traditionally regarded as a form of implementing the principle of popular sovereignty in the judicial sphere. However, domestic constitutional law scholarship lacks a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of constitutional models for regulating jury trials, which complicates determining optimal pathways for developing this institution in Ukraine. The purpose of this study is to clarify the features of constitutional regulation of the jury trial institution in foreign countries, identify the main models of such regulation, and determine the specifics of the Ukrainian constitutional model of popular participation in the administration of justice. The article systematizes three main approaches to the constitutional enshrinement of popular participation in justice: direct establishment of jury trials as an element of the judicial system with definition of its status and competence; formulation of a general principle of administering justice on behalf of the people without specifying institutional forms; absence of special constitutional provisions with delegation of regulation to ordinary legislation. Two main models of lay judge participation are identified: the classical Anglo-American model with clear separation of functions between jurors and professional judges, and the continental model of a unified panel of professional judges and lay assessors. It is established that states of the Anglo-American legal tradition constitutionally guarantee jury participation in both criminal and civil cases, while European and post-Soviet countries limit their jurisdiction primarily to criminal cases. An analysis of constitutional provisions on jury trials in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Denmark, Hungary, Austria, and post-Soviet states is conducted. It is concluded that Ukraine occupies an intermediate position in the system of global approaches, as the Constitution does not limit jury jurisdiction to criminal cases only, creating potential for introducing their participation in civil proceedings. Constitutional enshrinement provides the jury institution with enhanced legal protection and links it to the fundamental principles of popular sovereignty and democratic organization of state power.