UCLA School of Law

Citizen participation has been considered as a main channel for political legitimacy, but does this logic apply to a more technical legal context like the judiciary? This paper explores the relationship between perceived citizen participation in the form of jury and its subsequent impact on judicial support. We theorize jury as a mechanism to strengthen judicial support in two ways: it elevates the perceived procedural fairness in individual adjudications, and the popular participation aspect of it can legitimize the broader judicial system. Employing a mixed-methods approach that integrates fieldwork with a survey experiment, this study investigates how the jury-like system in China (the lay assessor system) has yielded popular support for the judiciary. Our findings reveal that lay participation in judicial decision-making not only improves perceptions of procedural fairness but also increases demand for lay participation. As a mechanism of due process, lay assessors can enhance fairness perceptions of case outcomes. Furthermore, voting as the defining feature of the jury system substantively augments the perceived judicial legitimacy. These results affirm our theoretical framework concerning the jury's role in garnering judicial support. The dual function of the jury, as both an instrument of due process and a facilitator of popular participation, demonstrates its potential to strengthen judicial support across various regime and legal system types.