Experts of the Supreme Court discussed the “nomadic” jurors and the participation of the judge in their panel

The Supreme Court held a “second round” of public discussion of the concept of jury reform, which was presented at the Russian State University of Justice in late September by Supreme Court Judge Sergei Zelenin. This time, the concept was discussed by the Scientific Advisory Council (SCC) at the Supreme Court. The novels suggest amendments to several federal laws, including the law “On jurors of federal courts of general jurisdiction in the Russian Federation” to the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes.

The central idea of the Supreme Court’s proposals is not a point-based, but a complex nature of changes that will reduce the time for considering cases, narrow the list of grounds for cancelling sentences, including acquittals, make the procedure more understandable and transparent, including for the parties and jurors, and, as a result, more attractive for citizens, Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court Nikolai Tymoshin said at the beginning of the event.

He recalled the main proposals of the Supreme Court: to unite a professional judge and jurors in one collegium, reducing their number to four people, to refuse a complete ban on research in the presence of jury procedural issues, the inadmissibility of informing them about the existence of evidence excluded by a court decision.

The reform, as Timoshyn pointed out, also involves changing the grounds for overturning the acquittals handed down by the jury. In particular, it is assumed that the grounds for cancellation can not serve as some violations committed during the selection of jurors, if they are not declared by the participants in the process before the verdict. It is also proposed to fix the right of the accused in some cases to refuse to consider his case by a court with the participation of a jury.

The judge will vote last

“With fear we await the verdict of the jury. And not because of what it will be. The main problem is when the jury excludes something, any circumstance, from the question sheet, said Alexander Kozlov, a judge of the Moscow Court. The objections of participants in the courts often turn into an attempt at debate, he added. Acquittals are overturned due to the impact of the defense on jurors, it takes time to replace a jury, he described the existing problems.

According to him, some lawyers opposed the proposed reform, as the introduction of a judge on the jury could lead to the fact that he will be able to “influence” the jurors. But Kozlov noted that four assessors who have their own opinions and life experience will be able to oppose their opinion to the judge.

According to Vadim Vinogradov, a member of the Public Chamber, fears that the judge will dominate the opinion of the jury are not very justified. According to the concept, Vinogradov noted that during the meeting, the judge and the jury will have one vote, and the judge will vote in the deliberation room last.

A member of the High Qualification Collegium of Judges, former ECHR judge Anatoly Kovler urged not to be afraid of the inclusion of a professional judge in the panel, this procedure is practiced in a number of Western courts. At the same time, he noted, today there are often problems with changing the composition of the board during the trial. The problem here is their formation. Today it is made up of “thousands of candidates”, but it takes a long time.

The issue of security and jury remuneration

But the most important thing to date is that many candidates are afraid to go to the jury, Kovler noted. This is mainly characteristic of the regions of the North Caucasus, he said, suggesting to try to carry out an experiment of “importing jurors” from other regions, which will probably ensure their safety. Safety, unfortunately, is absent in this project that we are considering, Kovler explained. The experience of solving this problem, he said, was accumulated by the ancient Greeks and Romans. “They had nomadic judges and nomadic judges at that time. They came to the courtrooms from distant places, and on the same day they were appointed. This helped to avoid not only bribery, but also such an unspoken conviction for participation in this case, Kovler said.

In order to ensure the safety of jurors during the trial, he also proposed to give them the status of professional judges.

Natalia Gromova, a judge from St. Petersburg, suggested that the concept of jury reform should include at least four or even six substitute jurors in case a replacement is needed. The law now provides for two substitute jurors.

The meeting participants also drew attention to the fact that the level of compensation of assessors “does not correspond” to modern realities. For example, in regional courts it is about 700 rubles. They proposed to increase this amount, as it should be prescribed in the bill. One type of encouragement would be to grant additional days of leave to assessors.

The representative of the Prosecutor’s office at the meeting expressed concern that the jury may include people with dual citizenship, offering to work out a measure that will prevent this.

According to the Supreme Court, 643 criminal cases were considered with the participation of jurors in 2025, which accounted for 0.1% of the total of 540,962 cases considered. At the same time, there is a high percentage of cancellation of acquittals based on the jury verdict: in 2021, sentences against 72.5% of acquitted persons were canceled, in 2022 - 65%, in 2023 - 75.6%, in 2024 - 70%, and in 2025 - 81.5%.

In March 2026, President Vladimir Putin instructed the government and the Supreme Court, together with the Prosecutor General’s Office, to consider the proposals of the Presidential Human Rights Council to motivate Russians to participate in the courts as jurors by July 1. The head of the Armed Forces Igor Krasnov and Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin were appointed responsible. Members of the HRC pointed to the “catastrophic shortage” of jurors, which is often due to the length of trials, as well as the lack of measures to encourage candidates for jurors. In addition, the HRC reported cases of pressure on the jury.