The Criminal Justice System under the New Lay-judge System

“塞班”制度有赖于法院主持审判的“新准备程序”，特别是证据的发现和争议问题的解决。尽管有论者认为，检察官手中的所有材料都应该在开庭前向辩方披露，但这并不能平衡公众和被告之间的利益冲突。由于辩方通过“新的准备程序”进行证据开示的目的是为了理清有争议的问题，因此采用循序渐进的程序似乎是合理的，即检察官在第一步有义务披露他/她的案件和要使用的证据，只有在辩方案件披露之后，检察官才有义务对与有争议的问题有关的材料进行第二步的披露。但有一些证据通常是准备辩方案件的材料，它们的性质很少被滥用。这也符合“新准备程序”的目的，即检察官有义务在辩方案件披露之前就明确披露这类证据。在新制度下，通常情况下，除非辩方案件在“新准备程序”中事先披露，否则不能开庭审理。这不会违反宪法对禁止自证其罪的特权的保障，因为任何声明都不是“被迫”的。即使由初审法官主持的“新准备程序”，也不会违反排除偏见的原则，即禁止初审法官在开庭前接受任何一方当事人的单方面信息。

The "saiban-in" system depends on the "new preparatory procedure" for trial presided by the court, especially the discovery of evidence and sorting out of the contested issues through that procedure.Though some commentators argue that all the materials in the prosecutor's hand should be disclosed to the defense side before opening the trial session, it would not succeed in balancing the conflicting interests between the public and the defendant. Because the purpose of the defense discovery of evidence through the "new preparatory procedure" is to sort out the contested issues, it seems reasonable to adopt the step by step procedure where, at the first step, the prosecutor is obligated to disclose his/her case and evidence to be used, and only after the defense case is disclosed, prosecutor is obligated to conduct the second step disclosure of the materials relevant to the contested issues. But there are some kinds of evidence which are, as a rule, material for preparing the defense case and are rarely abused in their nature. It would also fit the purpose of the "new preparatory procedure" to obligate the prosecutor to disclose categorically such kinds of evidence even before the defense case is disclosed.Under the new system, as a rule, the defense case cannot be brought into trial unless it is not disclosed in advance in the "new preparatory procedure". It would not violate the constitutional guarantee of the privilege against self-incrimination, because no statement is "forced". The "new preparatory procedure", presided even by the trial court judge, would not violate the principle of the exclusion of prejudice, which is to prohibit the trial judge to receive one-side information from any parties before trial.In addition to the issue above, the number of professional judge and lay judge composing the collegiate panel is considered.