Abstract
The configuration of the Jury Court within the Spanish legal system represents a fundamental pillar in the democratization of criminal justice administration. Through this institution, direct citizen participation in the prosecution of certain serious crimes is enabled, reinforcing the principles of publicity, immediacy, orality, and civic involvement.
This article aims to analyze, from both a legal and practical perspective, the nature, functioning, scope of competence, and procedural implications of the Jury Court, in accordance with Organic Law 5/1995 of May 22 on the Jury Court and institutional information provided by the Community of Madrid.
Constitutional Basis and Legal Framework
The jury institution is based on Article 125 of the Spanish Constitution, which establishes that “citizens may participate in the Administration of Justice through the institution of the Jury, in the form and with respect to criminal proceedings as determined by law.” Its statutory development is established in Organic Law 5/1995, which regulates the essential aspects of its operation.
It is therefore a judicial body of a non-professional nature, composed of lay citizens, whose main function is to adjudicate the facts presented before them, under the direction of a professional judge who presides over the court.
Composition of the Jury Court
The Jury Court consists of nine jurors and a presiding judge from the corresponding Provincial Court. Two substitute jurors are also appointed to ensure the integrity of the court during the trial.
Jurors carry out the function of factual assessment, determining whether the facts submitted are proven and whether the accused should be declared guilty or not guilty. The presiding judge directs the proceedings, instructs the jury on applicable law, and issues the judgment, which must respect the verdict reached by the citizens.
Scope of Competence
According to Article 1 of Organic Law 5/1995, the Jury Court has jurisdiction over certain crimes of significant penal and social relevance, including:
- Homicide (Articles 138–140 of the Penal Code).
- Conditional threats (Article 169.1).
- Failure to provide assistance (Articles 195 and 196).
- Home invasion.
- Crimes committed by public officials in the exercise of their office, such as bribery, embezzlement, influence peddling, or malfeasance.
- Crimes against honor, liberty, and security.
- Forest fires (Article 352).
Trials are held before the Provincial Court where the crime was committed, unless jurisdictional exceptions apply, in which case the competent court assumes authority.
Requirements, Incompatibilities, and Excuses for Jurors
Jurors must meet the following requirements:
- Spanish nationality and legal age.
- Full enjoyment of political rights.
- Literacy.
- Residency in the province where the crime was committed.
- Sufficient physical and mental aptitude.
Disqualifications include: prior unexpunged convictions for intentional crimes, ongoing criminal proceedings, holding certain public offices (judges, prosecutors, practicing lawyers, law enforcement), or having a direct relationship with parties in the case.
Excuses include: serving as a juror in the last four years, being over 65 years old, serious family responsibilities, residence abroad, or practicing irreplaceable professions.
Rights and Duties of Jurors
Selected jurors are considered ad hoc public officials with duties of attendance, impartiality, and confidentiality of deliberations. Their participation is a legally protected public duty. They are entitled to remuneration for service and reimbursement of expenses related to travel, accommodation, and subsistence.
Procedural Development
The procedure before the Jury Court is governed by Organic Law 5/1995 and general criminal procedural principles. The sequence includes:
- Opening order for oral trial by the investigating judge.
- Oral trial before the Jury Court, with evidence presented to the jurors.
- Instructions by the presiding judge regarding the facts to be considered proven.
- Jury deliberation and verdict, requiring a qualified majority.
- Judgment issued by the presiding judge, respecting the verdict and determining legal qualification, sentence, and civil liability.
While jurors assess the facts, legal qualification is exclusively the presiding judge’s responsibility.
Practical Implications for Criminal Defense
Trials before a Jury Court involve procedural particularities for defense strategy:
- Selection and challenge of jurors.
- Clear factual presentation for lay jurors.
- Careful attention to jury instructions.
- Evidence presentation aimed at direct juror conviction, particularly through witness and expert testimony.
Strategically, defense may prefer jury trials where facts or circumstances permit social empathy or reasoned judgment from lay citizens.
Controversies Regarding the Jury Court
Since the implementation of Organic Law 5/1995, the Jury Court has been subject to debate in legal doctrine, judiciary, and media. Controversies focus on:
- Lack of juror legal training: Jurors’ absence of formal legal knowledge may complicate understanding technical evidence.
- Risk of partiality or external influence: Media and social pressures may affect impartiality.
- Lack of verdict motivation: Jurors are not required to provide detailed legal reasoning.
- Procedural complexity and delays: Jury trials are lengthier and more formalistic.
- Disparity in application: Regional differences may lead to uneven procedural outcomes.
Despite controversies, the Jury Court remains a democratic institution enhancing citizen participation in justice. Its effective use requires refined defense strategy, comprehensive legal knowledge, and adaptation to a lay court.
Conclusion
The Jury Court is of undeniable relevance in Spanish criminal law, implementing constitutional mandates for citizen participation. Its regulation under Organic Law 5/1995 strengthens publicity, immediacy, and orality principles, lending democratic legitimacy to judicial decisions.
However, practical tensions exist regarding juror training, verdict reasoning, and potential bias or delays. The Jury Court should be viewed as complementary to professional judiciary, relying on precise jurisdictional boundaries, procedural guarantees, and the capacity of legal operators to adapt strategies to lay jurors, thereby balancing citizen participation with legal certainty and equality.
