Abstract
This essay tries to analyze the fact-finding method of the professional judges and that of Saiban-in (lay assessors) in the so-called mixed court system based upon the data collected for four years after the start of the system on May 21, 2009 in Japan. First of all, I would like to compare the data with those of the criminal jury system existed from 1928-43 in Japan by paying attention to the meaning of rate of not-guilty verdicts. Subsequently by focusing upon the cases of “Stimulant Drug Smuggling Cases” among not-guilty verdict cases of Saiban-in trials, the actual and practical fact-finding method for decision making that appeared in both Tokyo Court of Appeal and the Japanese Supreme Court. The judicial opinions of both courts revealed the difference of fact-finding method between professional judges and Saiban-in: judges make use of the deductions drawing from indirect or circumstantial evidences repeatedly to reach unproven fact but Saiban-in is more inclined to follow the “Beyond the Reasonable Doubt” standard to decide the fact. The Supreme Court of Japan recommended in the Court opinion that the presiding judge of Saiban-in should explain the fact-finding method of the judges to Saiban-in to get into line to decide the case. If so, such judge’s instruction on this matter to the Saiban-in should be provided in the open court.
