How do mixed criminal courts in France and Germany differ from jury trials in the United States?

The primary difference between the criminal justice systems of France and Germany compared to the United States lies in the structure and function of the adjudicating body. While the United States relies on the jury system, France and Germany utilize "mixed courts" composed of both professional judges and laypersons who deliberate together.1

Key Differences in Structure and Procedure

• Composition and Deliberation: In the U.S. adversary system, the jury is composed entirely of laypersons who determine the verdict, while the judge acts as a legal referee, remaining separate from jury deliberations. In contrast, French and German mixed courts integrate professionals and lay assessors; they deliberate together on both the verdict and the sentence, with each member typically holding an equal vote.123
• Role of the Judge: In the civil-law systems of France and Germany, the process is inquisitorial. Judges take an active role in directing the presentation of evidence and questioning witnesses, rather than acting as passive recipients of evidence presented by counsel as in the U.S. system.234
• Verdict and Transparency: U.S. jury verdicts generally announce only guilt or acquittal. Conversely, the decisions of mixed tribunals in civil-law countries are typically accompanied by a formal statement of reasons.3
• Evidence: Rules of evidence in civil-law jurisdictions are generally less restrictive than in the U.S., where common-law doctrines are designed to prevent juries from being misled by potentially prejudicial information.53