ნაფიც მსაჯულთა სასამართლოს ვერდიქტის დაუსაბუთებლობის პრობლემატიკა

The jury verdict is not substantiated by Georgian law. Jurors do not produce any procedural documents to substantiate what evidence has led them to the appropriate conclusions. In the narrow sense, the verdict, as the type of decision, on the one hand to the end did not fall under the Court's established standards of reasoning part, because the European court obliges the hindering side that the court's decision must be reasonable and justifiable, while on the other hand the verdict, in the broadest sense, does not explicitly proceed judicial decision-legal nature, because in most cases the decision is made by non-lawyers’ group, which can not be formulated in such a manner as it is done in case of a professional judge.
The essence of unsubstantiality of the jury verdict as a problem in the Georgian legal sphere is not discussed in depth, since the jury institute in Georgia has been created since October 1, 2010 and counts only 10 years of existence. Accordingly, we have tried our best in our work, based on scientific works and existing reality, to discuss the problematic nature of the issue and to look for ways to make this institution even more flexible and effective.
Jury trial as an institution has been launched in Georgia since October the 1st , 2010. Jurors, after the hearing the evidences are obliged to collectively make a decision and in the form of a verdict to establish whether the particular person is "Guilty" or "innocent". However, unlike a professional judge, the verdict of Jury trial in not being argued. They are limited only by the definition of a person's guilty-innocence, do not even indicating in detail specifically what kind of evidences and circumstances led them to make this conclusion (decision). The topic is uniquely relevant in its essence, since there is very little information regarding this issue in Georgian language, accordingly, we will mainly reffer to such countries of law, where the Institute of Jury trial contains not only its legal, but the cultural-interreligious significance to the nation. The main direction of our topic is this issue, and the review the problems arising due to unreasonability of jury trial’s verdict. Various research methods have been applied us, among them are a relatively-legal, formal-logical and analytical methods, in order to understand the essence of the problem more deeply and discuss the above-mentioned issues in detail.
We considered very important, to review the problem of Nullification. For us this issue is mostly one of the most basic drawbacks of litigation, against which those countries are actively fighting with all possible methods, where this institution operates. Together with our concept of nulification, the main 5 reasons for nulification were discussed, and this is perceived as a significant problem due to international practice. Attention was focused on the resonant and mostly high-profiled criminal cases...