Ill The history of French criminal procedure across the nineteenth century is full of alterations, readjustments, and political intrigues, and it is not worthwhile go to through all that here.^° In the French revolutionary jury discussion, however, three major currents appeared, all of them unanimous on the necessity of the jury itself. The differences had to do with the composition of the jury. One of the currents - the ultra current (represented by Cazales) —was in favor of excluding all social classes except the richest proprietaries fromjury membership. The constitutional current (Duport) wanted the “middle class” or the notables on the juries, whereas the radical democratic wing (Robespierre) would have opened the jury benches to all citizens.^* The middle class faction won the battle, and the jury, according to the law of September 16-29, 1791, came mainly to consist of the notables: lawyers, officials, entrepreneurs, and representatives of the liberal trades.^- Technically, the limitations on potential jury membership were realized by making the membership dependent on the citizens’ tax-paying ability. Unlike later in Germany, no discussions on the educational level of the jurors took place. Contrary to what Robespierre claimed- for him the limitations were another formof privileges - the limitations imposed were typically hourgeois by nature. Everyone had, at least theoretically, the possibility of rising to the class of potential jurors. UIntime Conviction As far as the law of proof in criminal matters was concerned, the French Revolution completely wiped out what remained of the system of statutory proof.-^-'’ The systemwas replaced by the free evaluation of evidence, entrusted to lay jurors. Compared to the German idea of “Totaleindruck” (see Chapter 8), the French version of free evaluation of proof was extreme. The jurors evaluating the evidence were required tc') trust their “intimate conviction” {“intime conviction”) intuitively and almost blindly; therefore, fact decisions could not be appealed,^^’ and, of course, no grounds could be given or demanded for the fact decisions. For .1 detailed account of the French jury’s history in the 1800s, see Esmein 1882, Schnapper 1987, and Lombard 1993; for the development of criminal procedure fromthe Revolution to the Code d’lnstruction Crimmelle, see Cramer 1966 and Feldhausen 1966; and for the adoption of French modern criminal procedure in the German Rhine provinces occupied bv France, see Ffaber 1979. -’* Lombard 1993 p. 151. For the jury discussions in the Constitutive Assembly, see also Padoa Schioppa 1987. Schnapper 1987 pp. 167-168; Lombard 1993 p. 155. Haber 1979 p. 232. Ibid. pp. 238-239. Schnapper 1987 p. 175. Fsmein 1882 p. 428.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=