A Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Levéltár évkönyve 30. 2004-2005 (Debrecen, 2005)

Tanulmányok - Antal Tamás: Az esküdtszékek reorganizációja (1896-1900), különös tekintettel Debrecenre

214

Antal Tamás: Az esküdtszékek reorganizációja...

349. Zöld Mihály

350. Zelinger Ede

351. Zöld János

352. Zavilla Gyula

353. Zádor Lajos

Forrás: Debreczeni Ellenőr. 1899. december 7. (316. szám) 6. p., december 8. (317. szám) 6. p., december 9. (318. szám) 6. p.

354. Zefer István

355. Zsadányi József

356. Zvér Ferencz

Reorganisation of Juries (1896-1900), Specially in Debrecen by Tamás Antal

When the Criminal Procedure Law 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 eventual mistakes. Hence the Criminal Procedure Law (Act XXXIII of 1896), which was prepared under the guidance of Dezső Szilágyi, was greatly praised and unanimously adopted — partly due to the concept of final jury trial. However, the Act on the Organisation of the Juiy and the later Act that enacted the Criminal Procedure Law (XXXIV of 1897) was contested by the Opposition. The debate was a little academic considering the fact that the jury de lege lata already existed in the Criminal Procedure Law. For this reason, the use of the jury could not be prevented - only hindered.

The most heated debates took place concerning the drawing-up of the master list and the jury summons list. The Opposition supported the usual method saying that it was the best way to guarantee the independence of jury members from the executive powers. However, to ensure the minimal standard of professionalism, the bill included a method of selection by committees instead. The debate was significant from at least one aspect. There was the theoretical possibility that a completely pro-government jury could be set up if public administration issues prevailed in the selection criteria. Seen from this aspect, it was the courts that would be the most suitable means of selection. Nevertheless, many showed distrust towards judges as well because, as has already been mentioned, judges did not enjoy complete independence from the Ministry of Justice. In the end, the parliamentary' committee of justice drafted a compromise solution: judicial and public administrative members should both be elected to the delegating committees to keep an eye on each other.

This practice, however, did not vindicate the concerns of the Opposition relating to the selection of juries. After researching the professional literature of the time, I could not find any article that attacked the organisational rules of the jury. All criticism centred on the regulations of the Criminal Procedure Law. The legal