Antal Tamás: Törvénykezési reformok Magyarországon 1890-1900. Ítélőtáblák, bírói jogviszony, esküdtszék - Dél-Alföldi évszázadok 23. (Szeged, 2006)

A JOGÉRT MINDHALÁLIG - SUMMARY

The jury system was not without its precedents in Hungarian law. Act XVIII of 1848 provided for the institution of juries specialising in press cases, whose organisation and procedures were regulated in a decree issued by Ferenc Deak in April of the same year. This jury [eskiidtszek], however, existed only in theory because the Hungarian revolution soon broke out and prevented trials by jury from taking place. The empty form taken over by Boldizsar Horvat in 1867 was subsequently filled in, in the era of the dual monarchy. Press trials were at first subject to the jurisdiction of mixed tribunals set up in the place of former district appeal courts, but later on they came under the jurisdiction of special tribunals until 1897 (1990). The professional literature of the time expressly dealt with the theoretical aspects of the organisation of juries including the determination of their suitability, censuses, the right of rejection, the grand jury, the jury voting proportions (for-against) needed for decisions, and whether the jury should decide only in questions of fact or in questions of law as well. These questions were given various answers abroad: the jury system was spreading throughout Europe. Although in 1867 the system was only in its infancy, there were still a lot of theories about it at the time. The decree on the juries, issued in May 1867, was based mainly on another one issued the previous year though it incorporated German and French influences as well. Of course the benchmarks were the English and American jury systems, but the legislation was afraid to take them over completely. Thus the grand jury concept was abandoned, the jury voting system (for-against) was amended and the competence of the jury was limited to press offences. The decree, of course, needed to be rectified several times. Actually, I found over twenty other sources of law that regulate some of the jury procedures. From these sources, I endeavoured to reconstruct the procedures of the press jury of the time. It may seem surprising but the principles of criminal procedures of today were already included in these decrees, primarily because of the French influence. These principles were not really consciously codified ones, but were created to provide some protection against the disadvantages resulting from the administration of justice of the time. They also protected the rights of the accused arising from the presumption of innocence, including the right of choice of the defence counsel. The institution of the examining judge was also introduced. After the French pattern, the public prosecutor acquired an important role. The decree, of course, laid especial emphasis on the jury procedures. The organisational and procedural norms were included in the same body of law. This practice was changed only with the reorganisation at the end of the century. When the Criminal Procedure Law [Bunvddi perrendtartds] was brought before Parliament in September 1896 it transpired that the majority of representatives wished extend the competence of the jury. Even those against the jury accepted the adoption of the institution. The legal profession and the public expected that adjudication would become more independent. At the same time there had been negative experiences in connection with the press trials, but everybody comforted themselves with the idea that the relevant legal regulations would be prudential and would eliminate the