On improving the national model of jury trials in light of Anglo-American experience of functioning of this model

It is indicated that in the context of the modern transformation of the criminal procedural doctrine of Ukraine, the issue of the institutional authenticity of the jury trial becomes particularly relevant. The article analyzes scientific doctrines, US court decisions, and the norms of current Ukrainian legislation, which show that the modern domestic institution of jury trials objectively requires a significant paradigm shift through the approximation of the principles of the classic adversarial model and the systematic implementation of its key principles. It is noted that the optimization of the domestic jury system lies in the implementation of the fundamental principles of Anglo-American law. The priority steps should be the functional distribution of powers between the jury and the judge, expanding the list of categories of cases subject to such consideration, strengthening the autonomy and independence of the jury when rendering a verdict, as well as implementing the fundamental doctrine of the classical model, the fundamental feature of which is the principle of finality and the non-appealability of an acquittal verdict. Based on the results of the study, it was concluded that the modern domestic institution of jury trials requires a transition from the current mixed model (where professional judges and jurors jointly decide both questions of fact and law) to the classical model, which is based on the principle of a clear division of powers. This is because the implementation of the fundamental doctrine of the classical model – the separation of powers regarding “questions of fact” and “questions of law” – is based on a clear division of the methods of establishing the truth in court. Within the classical model, the jury directly examines the facts of the case and establishes the involvement of individuals in them, while the professional judge provides only a legal assessment of the act. As a result, the adversarial principle is strengthened, which consists in the transition from a formal examination of the case materials to a real intellectual confrontation between the parties before an independent arbiter of fact. This ensures the highest standard of proof, where the persuasiveness of the parties’ arguments becomes the sole criterion for decision-making, which radically minimizes the influence of inquisitorial factors on the outcome of justice.