Abstract
English Abstract: This article considers the issue of meaningful lay participation in legal systems. The case considered is the Norwegian legal system during a historic time of transition away from all-layperson juries. Drawing on sixteen months of ethnographic research, the study included court observation and interviews with judges, prosecutors, former lay decision-makers, defense attorneys, and other participants in the country’s longstanding jury debate. A conclusion that emerges is that presumptions of the commensurability of all-layperson juries and mixed courts demand attention to the specific social and cultural contexts of the states that support them. Ethnographic research demonstrates that all-layperson juries in Norway face practical and procedural checks that differentiate them from juries in other settings, and that also reflect distinctive understandings of social equality that pervade society.
The article concludes that in the process of explicitly and implicitly limiting the discretion of all-layperson jurors by setting aside verdicts and evaluating evidence in legal instructions, legal professionals in Norway evince confidence that mixed courts of lay and professional citizens facilitate collaborative and just verdicts.