Litigant Status and Trial Court Appeal Mobilization

The advantages held by haves over have nots in litigation have long fascinated scholars, with a long line of research revealing that litigant status often affects litigant resources, experience, and chances of overall success from trial courts to appellate courts. What has received considerably less attention, however, is how this status affects the decision to appeal. Bringing a new perspective to this important area holding implications for the shape and content of the judicial hierarchy, this study analyzes the decision of the losing federal district court litigant to appeal to the US courts of appeals. Utilizing an original database containing a sample of federal district court civil cases decided between 2000 and 2004, the results indicate, as predicted, that litigant status differentials affect whether there will be an appeal. This influence is further magnified when conditioned upon the relative costs of the appeal. These findings provide one of the first detailed examinations of litigant status and appeals coming from US trial courts and, simultaneously, offer the first empirical evidence to date that business litigants, like previously known government parties, are advantaged over individuals when deciding whether to appeal.     

Understanding Judicial Hierarchy: Reversals and the Behavior of Intermediate Appellate Judges

One of the central controversies in the judicial behavior literature is the extent to which judges' ability to act according to their ideological preferences is affected by their location in the judicial hierarchy. Judges on intermediate appellate courts have different decisionmaking environments than high court judges. As a result, the goals of lower appellate court judges may differ from those of their superiors: the quest for legal accuracy may compete with the desire to pursue policy preferences. Analysis of the reversal rate of the U.S. circuit courts of appeals offers insight into the extent to which these judges balance the pressures of their own policy preferences with the desire to achieve the legally accurate result in cases they decide.     

Type of counsel and the outcome of criminal appeals: A research note

Previous studies have focused on type of counsel and case outcome at trial court, but only a few have done so at the appellate level. The purpose of this research note is to provide some insight into the influence of type of counsel on the out-come of criminal appeals. Results indicate that in criminal appeals from two Florida trial courts to an intermediate appellate court type of counsel was non-significant in predicting the court’s decision. The implications of the findings are discussed.     

“禁止不利益变更”原则若干问题研究

"禁止不利益变更"原则,作为大陆法系主要国家民事上诉案件审理的一项重要原则,其是仅适用于第二审程序中的一项规范法官裁判的规则;其中的"不利益"指的是有损于上诉人在一审判决中,已经判归上诉人的实体利益。应当将"不利益"的判断和识别标准扩大到判决的理由。将这一原则引入我国,有利于较好地贯彻和体现辩论主义,促进审判民主和防止裁判突袭,以及保障法官的裁判中立。     

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

In this article, we examine factors that influence appellate supervision in the lower tiers of the federal judicial hierarchy. Drawing on the insights of agency theory, we develop a framework to assess the determinants of circuit panel decisions to affirm or reverse federal district court rulings. Our analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals' published civil rights decisions over a 29-year period (1971–1999) offers support for several hypothesized relationships. As expected, the outcome of appellate review varied with the level of agreement between the preferences of the circuit (as principal) and the policy position of the trial court (as agent). In addition, we found that circuits were more likely to affirm trial court decisions that were contrary to the preferences of the federal district court judge, suggesting that circuit judges may rely on ideological signals when evaluating appeals before them. We also hypothesized that the monitoring activities of circuits would be influenced by individual circuits' relationship with their principal, the Supreme Court. Consistent with these expectations, panels were more likely to reverse district court rulings that were incongruous with the policy predisposition of the High Court. In addition, as Supreme Court scrutiny of a circuit increased, the likelihood of a circuit panel subsequently reversing a district court also increased. Although further inquiry is necessary to clarify the interpretation of this result, the finding does suggest that district courts are more likely to engage in decision making that deviates from circuit preferences when that circuit faces more intense supervision from the Supreme Court.     

Modelling appellate courts’ responses in motor injury disputes

Motor third-liability insurance is compulsory in the European Union. We examine the behaviour of Spanish appellate courts in the context of motor liability insurance and pay particular attention to four characterising features. Specifically, we investigate (1) how the appellate court interprets the rules for updating the financial compensation when the courts’ ruling is made in a different year to that in which the motor accident occurred; (2) the response of the appellate court when its legal medical evaluation differs from the court’s decision; (3) whether the appellate court modifies the criteria when the insurance company was not charged with interest for delaying payment in the first instance; (4) whether the fault allocated by trial courts is revised by the appellate court. We apply a multi-categorical selection mechanism to deal with samples that are potentially non-random. This allows us to separately consider the characteristics of victim’s and the insurer’s decisions to appeal. The results indicate that disputing agents have significantly different appeal functions, where insurers show a more effective and consistent behaviour than victims.     

Appellate and trial court caseload growth: A pooled time-series-cross-section analysis

This is an econometric study of factors behind filing growth since 1970 in state trial courts and, especially, appellate courts. The model posits two categories of variables: those affecting the supply of disputes and those affecting the costbenefit considerations of potential litigants. The study uses a pooled time-seriescross-section design and a fixed-effects regression procedure. The overall conclusion is that factors determining the supply of disputes overwhelm other factors entered in the model. At the trial level, economic conditions 2 years earlier strongly affect civil filings, and crime rates for the current and prior year have moderate impacts on criminal filings. The output capacity of trial courts, measured by the number of judges, has a strong impact on appeals. Economic conditions and trial court filings influence civil appeals in later years, and prison commitments influence criminal appeals. The great majority of cost-benefit factors, such as simplification of appellate procedure and interest-rate differentials, showed little or no impact on appeals.In view of the rising emphasis on replicability (Dewaldet al., 1986; Campbell, 1986; Cook and Zarkin, 1986), we stress that the data for this research are available from the Inter-Univarsity consortium for Political and Social Research, and we will provide copies of the computer printouts giving the programs (that apply SAS) and the results. In addition, Court Studies periodically updates the data set, and it will supply current data upon request.     

Korean citizen participation in criminal trials: The present situation and problems

As citizen participation in criminal trials was first introduced in 2008, it is advisable to keep the present form of an all-citizen jury system rather than introduce or adopt aspects of the Continental mixed tribunal system because the former system makes the best use of the meaning of Article 1 of the Act of Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials in Korea. Though previously professional judges participated in the deliberation process, under the current system, the new procedure should allow only jurors to engage in deliberations and render verdicts, with sentencing still left to professional judges. The new law should also eliminate a consent agreement required for a defendant in jury trial, thereby making jury trial mandatory for certain classes of heinous crimes like murder or even political crimes; juvenile cases, however, may still be excluded from jury trial. In addition, the exclusion right of the court should also be recognized, but the current comprehensive rule (Article 9 (1) (3)) should be eliminated. It is necessary for the jury verdict to have legal binding force such that the prosecutor cannot appeal the acquittal if the verdict was decided unanimously. Lastly, as for the use of victim participation programs, it is enough to simply allow victims to make statements as witness. This year, on March 6, 2013, the revised system of civil participation in criminal trials has been ready based on the evaluation of the current system by the Committee on Civil Judicial Participation, which was comprised of members from the judiciary, the academia, and civil organizations. The new amendment will be submitted to the National Assembly within this year.     

The Influence of Administrative Law Judge and Political Appointee Decisions on Appellate Courts in National Labor Relations Board Cases

Scholars have long been simultaneously concerned with the factors that influence appellate court decision making and the level of deference that the courts allow for agencies. However, scholars have treated administrative agencies as unitary actors with a single level of decision making, but in reality agency decisions involve input from multiple actors within the agency. I argue that appellate courts rely more heavily on decisions made by actors in the bureaucracy with greater levels of expertise and who are less politically motivated as cues in their decision making. This theory is bolstered by legal precedent in the area of administrative law that suggests courts should more heavily rely on the expert judgment of administrative judges. Thus, as a result of their increased expertise, appearance of political neutrality, and institutional support, courts will be more reliant on decisions issued by administrative law judges (ALJs) than those issued by the political appointees as cues in their decision making. Using over 300 unfair labor practice decisions issued by the federal appeals courts on review of cases from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), I develop a model of appeals court decision making in unfair labor practice cases as a function of the initial decision of the ALJ, the final order of the political appointees of the NLRB, case characteristics, the ideology of the deciding appeals court panel, Supreme Court influence, and economic factors. Though the ideology of the court plays a role in its decision making, cues from ALJ decision making and that of the Board weigh more heavily in appellate court outcomes. However, cues from ALJ decisions play the most consistent role in appellate court decision making, even in more difficult cases. This has important implications for agency strategy in courts and suggests that future research should consider the influence of lower‐level decision making over appellate court decision making in the area of administrative law.     

Affirmed: A Study of Criminal Appeals and Decision-Making Norms in a California Court of Appeal

The work of state intermediate appellate courts is often described as “correcting legal errors” and “supervising” trial courts. But what do these labels mean in practice? This article explores the intermediate appellate process through a study of criminal appeals in a California Court of Appeal. Part I describes the characteristics and dispositions of criminal appeals. Contrary to popular impression, a conviction was reversed in only about 5 percent of these appeals. To explain the low reversal rate, part II draws upon interviews with justices of the Court of Appeal to examine the institutional norms and perspectives guiding the court's decisions. The basic decision norms described by the justices are norms of affirmance: for example, the harmless error rule and the substantial evidence rule incline the court to affirm despite certain legal errors or factual questions. Moreover, the particularistic approach the court typically takes in its decision making apparently sensitizes it to the substantive characteristics prevailing in criminal appeals: the crimes are serious and there is little doubt about factual guilt. The low reversal rate and the analysis of the court's norms suggest that intermediate appellate review of criminal convictions is narrower and more constrained than the “error correction” and “supervision” labels imply. Part III explores the implications of the case study for appellate policy.     

Appealing (but not Necessarily Winning) to Improve Your Social Status

In this article, I argue that litigants identify the appellate courts as offering a powerful and public arena where litigants' claims are placed (at least temporarily) on an equal footing with the current state of the law. In this context, the initiation of appeals is treated as synonymous with receiving endorsements from the appellate courts that the litigants' original claims had sufficient merit to deserve better treatment than they had received previously from either the opposing parties or the trial courts. These actions work to raise appellants' social status, and I propose that such activity is one additional reason why some litigants might appeal.     

陪审团在衰退吗——当代英美陪审团的发展趋势解读

陪审团审判在民事案件和刑事案件中的使用都呈逐渐减少之趋势,并且批评陪审团审判制度的声音也越来越多。但是一些原来已经废除陪审团审判的国家却正在恢复或试图恢复这一制度。陪审团审判的生命力仍然旺盛,因为它仍然在保障自由、制约国家权力方面发挥着不可替代的作用。     

Predicting juvenile delinquency: A review of correlates and a confirmation by recent research based on an integrated theoretical model

This study is an exploration of the effects of setting cases for trial in a court that permits jury trials for juveniles. Although few cases actually go to trial, cases set for trial have an impact on juveniles and the court. The study reported here is based on data from a study of 710 youths upon whom delinquency petitions were filed in a suburban court in 1980. Of these youths, 94 had cases set for trial and 7 actually went to trial.

The first part of the article gives a brief historical perspective on the juvenile right to jury trial, discusses why defense attorneys set cases to trial, and describes some of the difficulties in measuring the impact of jury trials. The second part reports on the impact of trial setting in “Suburban Court” on case outcomes and case processing time. A partial correlation analysis shows that there is no significant association between setting a case for trial and either adjudication or final disposition, even when other factors are held constant. Setting a case for trial has a significant association with long case processing times, however. Cases set for trial take almost twice as long as other cases to move from filing to adjudication.     

我国民事审级制度之重塑

现代西方各国的民事诉讼审级制度虽有一定差异 ,但在实质上体现着相同的原理 ,或相似的功能配置方式 ,即均为三审终审的金字塔型审判结构 ,且三审法院分别由初审法院、上诉法院和最高法院构成 ,各自承担着不同的制度功能。而我国现行审级制度在许多方面与这些原理是相悖的 ,并随着我国社会的变迁 ,在近年来面临着越来越严重的危机。笔者认为 ,基于现代审级制度的原理、西方国家的经验以及我国的现实国情 ,可根据以下思路重构我国民事诉讼审级制度 :针对不同类型的案件 ,建构多元化的审级制度 ;重新界定四级法院的性质和功能并据此对法院系统进行调整 ;在重构审级制度的同时 ,规范再审程序 ,严格控制再审程序的发动。     

宋代民事案件的上诉程序考述

民事案件的上诉程序是宋代司法制度的一个重要组成部分 ,但长期以来 ,学界对这一问题的研究一直不够深入 ,其主要原因一是由于在宋代的法典中没有系统的有关民事上诉的法典 ;再一个原因是一般认为传统社会中的民事上诉案例非常少见。然而笔者却发现在宋代的资料中保存有相当数量的民事上诉判例 ,通过对这些案例的研究 ,可以较详细的了解到宋代的民事上诉制度的具体情形及其利弊。     

法院审理认罪认罚案件疑难问题研究

认罪认罚从宽制度的广泛适用,进一步促进刑事案件审判活动的繁简分流,提升刑事审判效率,但也在挑战着传统的刑事审判规则。作为行使刑事审判权力的国家机关,法院在审理认罪认罚案件过程中,存在法检关系、审理程序、庭审内容、应对上诉方式等方面的转变,同时,还面临精准量刑难以推进、程序效率价值不明、庭审实质效果不足、对上诉权制约无力等方面的难题。对此亟需通过科学的顶层设计,提升法院适用认罪认罚从宽制度的综合质效,其举措应包括但不限于:限定精准量刑的适用条件、健全分案和程序转化规则、明确庭审的审理重点和审理方式、确定并规范专门的上诉程序。     

VARIATION IN TRIAL PENALTIES AMONG SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENSES*

We examine the differences in the sentencing of those who plead guilty and those convicted by jury trial among defendants convicted of serious violent offenses. Drawing from a focal concerns and court communities perspective on court decision making, we develop several hypotheses about jury trial penalties for serious violent offenders, and how such penalties may vary by offense characteristics, defendant characteristics, and court contexts. Our hierarchical models using Pennsylvania sentencing data from 1997 to 2000 reveal that defendants are substantially penalized if they exercise their right to a jury trial and then lose. Furthermore, this jury trial penalty is not evenly assessed, but depends on the seriousness and type of offense, defendant criminal history, and court contextual characteristics such as caseload, court community size, local violent crime rates, and the size of local black populations.     

论上诉死刑案件审理方式的完善

上诉死刑案件审理方式的选择对死刑裁判准确性的实现具有决定性的意义。基于保障人权、诉求公正、贯彻死刑政策、实现上诉审职能方面的考虑,应当改革由于司法资源的有限、法律规定的疏漏、对生命权的漠视等原因造成的实践中第二审法院规避开庭审而大量以书面审或者调查讯问审的方式审结上诉死刑案件的做法。实现上诉死刑案件开庭审的普遍化,需要从理念到制度的转变与重构。     

Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial

Comprehension of two sets of judges' penalty phase instructions for a capital trial was examined. The 115 subjects, recruited from jury lists, viewed one of two 20-min videotapes, prepared either from the instructions given in a specific North Carolina capital trial several years ago or from the present North Carolina pattern instructions. After viewing the tape, subjects responded to a series of eight questions, which probed their understanding of the legal issues presented in the instructions. Compared to the subjects exposed to the present pattern instructions, those exposed to the instructions from the specific trial displayed significantly inferior understanding of the legal criteria to be used in deciding the existence of mitigating circumstances and for incorporating mitigating circumstances into the final jury recommendation of life imprisonment or the death penalty. The results of the experiment are relevant to appeals beyond the specific appeal that prompted the research, and the methodology is applicable to a range of issues.     

Beyond Pretrial Publicity: Legal and Ethical Issues Associated with Change of Venue Surveys

To combat the effects of pretrial publicity, a court may consider a change of venue, moving the trial to a jurisdiction that has been exposed to little publicity about the case. Social scientists can be of valuable assistance in measuring community attitudes regarding defendant level of guilt and case familiarity. This paper discusses obstacles faced by the authors when conducting change of venue surveys and presenting their findings to the court, including challenges to their ability to act and be viewed as scientists, and pressures to do that which contradicts empirical research in order to please the court. Future research should examine factors predicting judges' decisions on change of venue motions and issues associated with small venues and civil cases.