美国沃伦法院刑事诉讼革命的困境与反思

一般认为,在沃伦法院时期,美国最高法院法官在宪法判例中积极进行扩张解释,扩充了被告人沉默权、排除违法证据、律师帮助权等基本权利。实际上,沃伦法院刑事诉讼判例真实的历史是:为维护联邦制稳定,通过判例促成守法政府与有限政府,避免行政权力在刑事司法中肆意侵犯公民人权,以回应美国当时的种族平等权运动。反种族歧视运动间接影响了沃伦法院的刑事诉讼判例结果。总体而言,在将宪法修正案的多数条款适用于各州的同时,沃伦法院的刑事诉讼革命至少是部分失败的,主要在于司法审查标准上的矛盾、司法哲学上的局限性以及试图制定警察执法规范等原因所导致。参鉴沃伦法院的成败得失,我们既可以在合理确立法官的功能定位时追求实现个案正义,又能够在寻找改革的契机缓和个人权利与公共安全的冲突,以及为刑事被告人诉讼权利的保障创造条件等方面做出进一步的努力。     

美国现代司法审查的兴起

我们今天所看到的美国司法审查是司法审查发展的现代阶段。早期阶段的司法审查被认为是一种对抗立法暴政的革命行动,是一种政治色彩极强的行为。在马歇尔法院的推动下,司法审查由早期阶段进入了传统阶段。司法审查被赋予了浓厚的法律色彩,成为法院日常工作的一部分。19世纪末司法审查进入了转型阶段,法院用实体性正当程序去审查规制经济领域的立法。转型阶段预示了现代司法审查的到来。宪法和司法观念的转变、1937年的宪法革命和沃伦法院的推动共同促使了现代司法审查的兴起。现代司法审查的特征是对美国政治生活中司法部门的立法地位更为明确地接受。司法性立法被认为是法官无法推却和非常必要的职责。     

普通法传统中的自然正义原则

“自然正义原则”(thedoctrineofnaturaljustice)是普通法国家法院审查行政行为的一个基本依据 ,它代表着有关行政活动的最重要的程序要求。我国行政法学界对自然正义原则的系统研究成果并不多见 ,作为引玉之作 ,本文以自然正义原则同自然法、美国宪法中的“正当程序”规则的比较为基础 ,对该原则的历史起源和现今发展加以考察 ,以图对我国的行政程序制度建设有所裨益。     

论正当程序原则在行政审判中的适用——基于75份运用正当程序原则的行政诉讼判决书的分析

自2004年"张成银诉徐州市人民政府房屋登记行政复议决定案"以来,我国法院至少在75个行政诉讼判决书中明确使用了"正当程序原则"或"正当程序"或"正当法律程序"作为裁判理由。在审判实践中,法院通过扩充正当程序原则的内涵、模糊正当程序与法定程序的界限、调试正当程序原则的审查强度等方法适用正当程序原则。展望未来,法院应在保障人权与尊重行政权之间寻求合理的平衡,在裁判说理部分通过解释"法定程序"接纳正当程序原则的适用,并且可考虑参照先例。     

司法权威的来源

法律乃一门技艺"法律乃一门技艺",是英国17世纪初普通诉讼法院大法官柯克的名言。柯克被任命为普通诉讼法院大法官的时候,英国普通法院和教会法院的管辖权之争已经白热化了,普通法院针时教会法院随意拘捕人员的行为发出了禁令。1608年11月10日上午,星期天,应班克罗夫特大主教之请,英王詹姆斯一世召集普通法院法官召开了后世闻名的"星期天上午会议",准备收回普通法院部分管辖权,由国王亲自审理。会上,班克罗夫特大主教继续鼓吹王权至上的理论,说普通法院法官不过是国王的代表,审判不过是代行国王的权力,在国王收回的时候,法官应该听从,这在《圣经》上早有     

加拿大司法编制问题简介与思考

加拿大是一个联邦制国家,除最高法院之外,加拿大法院体系分为联邦法院系统和(省)地区法院系统。与此相对应,法官的任命由两个体系分别产生——联邦政府任命和省政府任命。加拿大最高法院、联邦法院、加拿大税务法院、联邦上诉法院、军事法院、军事上诉法院以及省高等法院、省上诉法院的法官都由联邦政府任命并支付薪水,省法院的法官由省政府任命并支付薪水。截止2008年10月1日,加拿大现有法官2000余名,省法院法官1000左右,联邦政府任命的法官1072名。如何确定适当的法院编制,不仅是我国法院亟待认真思     

网络时代的影响性诉讼及其法治影响力（下）——基于2005--2009年度影响性诉讼的实证分析

“影响性诉讼”（impactlitigation）这个词是一个“舶来品”。在20世纪五六十年代的美国，当经济发展、社会变迁催动既有权利边界变更之时，它原本是法官造法背景下通过法院实现社会变革的一种司法化的政治活动方式。在某种程度上，“非法证据排除规则”和“沉默权”等制度就是沃伦法院在影响性诉讼的基础上扩张权利、保障人权的制度遗产。     

走向我国行政诉讼的正当程序原则

我国法院对具体行政行为的审查主要是合法性审查,合法性审查的依据是法律法规的规定。但是在司法实践中,法院已开始基于正当程序原则审查具体行政行为的合法性,本文就在行政诉讼法明确规定违反法定程序作为具体行政行为合法性评判标准的情况下,正当程序构成合法性审查标准的法理依据和法律依据以及正当程序审查标准展开讨论。     

作为宪法权利的契约自由在洛克纳时代的变迁——以劳动契约领域为例

美国宪法文本没有明确列举契约自由,联邦最高法院经由第14修正案中的"自由",将契约自由解释为一项宪法权利。在洛克纳时代,联邦最高法院运用实体性正当程序审查管制性经济立法,一度使契约自由呈现一种放任状态。新政因应经济社会变革的需求实施后,法院开始考虑劳动领域中弱势缔约方的劣势地位,对纠偏性经济立法开始持遵从态度,限制绝对契约自由的适用空间。     

域外家事法院比较研究与我国家事法庭的构建

家事法院是为设计有别于普通法院而提出的概念,是为解决家事案件而设立的一个专门的审判机构。继美国最先提出建立家事法院后,世界各国纷纷效仿,其中日本无论是在家事法院的立法还是实践上都走在了世界的前列。在民事诉讼法改革的背景下,借鉴国外的家事法院模式,构建我国特色的家事法庭逐渐为学界认同。     

DO LOWER COURTS ANTICIPATE CHANGES IN SUPREME COURT POLICIES?: A Few Empirical Notes

This paper takes advantage of the change from the Warren Supreme Court to the Burger Supreme Court to investigate a phenomenon not usually examined in judicial impact research—anticipatory reactions. The research question is whether and under what circumstances federal courts of appeals anticipate changes in policy by the Supreme Court. Changes in the citation of Warren Court civil liberties decisions from the Warren Court era to the early Burger Court era are used to evaluate this question. It is hypothesized that moves away from Warren Court decisions would be greatest for decisions which received minimal support on the Warren Court and for important or salient policies. Contrary to these expectations it was found that during the Burger Court era the number of citations of Warren Court decisions actually increased, the percentage of positive citations increased, and the increases were greatest for decisions receiving minimal voting support on the Warren Court and for decisions classified as important.     

Packer in Context: Formalism and Fairness in the Due Process Model

Herbert Packer's The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968) has spawned decades of commentary. This essay argues that Packer's two‐model conceptualization of the criminal process is best understood within his professional milieu of doctrinal legal scholarship and the political context of the Warren Court revolution. Within this context, the essay suggests a distinction between two due process visions: formalism and fairness. This distinction is useful for illuminating debates and decisions on criminal procedure matters in the Supreme Court such as Terry v. Ohio (1968) and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) . I conclude by encouraging sensitivity to legal and historical context in future commentary on Packer's framework.     

Abolishing the Death Penalty: An Untested Legal Argument

This paper supplies the logical and substantive framework for an untested challenge to the legality of the death penalty in the United States. As such, it yields a novel strategy for appellants and supporting amici seeking review of capital cases in the United States Supreme Court. With twin reliance on the right of the people to reparation for harm wrongly inflicted by others and their constitutional right to Due Process of Law under the Fourteenth Amendment, this paper advances the argument that the mere possibility of a wrongful execution yields an imperative for abolishment of capital punishment by the Court.     

有效证明与维护程序正当性的矛盾及其解决--非法证据排除规则的理念与制度设置

主要从价值论的角度对当前在刑事诉讼中"非法证据可采性"问题进行研究,在凸现程序正当性要求的同时,提出了自己对"非法证据"是否具有可采性的观点,认为非法证据是对程序正当性价值的破坏;在个案真实和程序正当性之间,应该选择程序的正当性;并对非法证据排除在我国的具体制度设置提出了建议。     

La evolución del crimen de lesa humanidad en el derecho penal internacional*

Due to its “ex novo” character and the lack of a definition provided by a treaty, crimes against humanity have been evolutionarily defined by different international norms and by the jurisdictional activity of the International criminal tribunals that have been established throughout recent history up until the creation of the International Criminal Court. Thus, both positive and customary International criminal law have represented a competent judicial cooperative way to face these acts, first and foremost, by developing its gradual conceptualization and final codification and, secondly, through enabling the prosecution and the punishment of those responsible for these crimes. Accordingly, the evolution of the crimes against humanity’s definition is an outstanding legal element, which has contributed to the further consolidation of international criminal law.     

Beyond a “Victims’ Right”: Truth-Finding Power and Procedure at the ICC

The drafters of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court were presented with a unique opportunity to shape the future of victim participation in international criminal legal proceedings. They were also faced with a critical dilemma – how can the International Criminal Court promote the interests of victims while simultaneously protecting the accused’s fair trial rights? In many respects the final draft of the Rome Statute left the task of defining the parameters of these potentially competing interests to the Court. As a result, a body of case-law has emerged, highlighting textual ambiguities in the Rome Statute and giving rise to novel developments in sphere of victim participation. Amongst the most prominent of these developments is the recognition of the right of victims to introduce evidence at trial. However, viewing this procedure simply as a fixture of the International Criminal Court’s regime of victim participation masks its true significance and potential. This article explores the idea that the Court’s approach to the evidentiary procedure regulating victim participation has given birth to quasi-investigative powers that have the potential to dramatically reconfigure the future of international criminal litigation.     

2019年度人民法院十大刑事案件

2020年1月12 H,由人民法院報評選的2019年度人民法院十大刑事案件推出。此次入選的十個刑事案件均為人民法院報2019年所報道的具有重大社會影響力、公眾關注度高、審判結果具有重大突破、對公序良俗有重要示範引領作用的刑事案件。     

Washington v. Glucksberg was tragically wrong

Properly focused, there were two questions before the Supreme Court in Washington v. Glucksberg. First, in light of all of the other non-textual rights protected by the Supreme Court under the "liberty" of the Due Process Clause, is the right to assisted death a fundamental right? Second, if so, is the prohibition of assisted death necessary to achieve a compelling interest? Presented in this way, it is clear that the Court erred in Washington v. Glucksberg. The right of a terminally ill person to end his or her life is an essential aspect of autonomy, comparable to aspects of autonomy that the Court has protected in decisions concerning family autonomy, reproductive autonomy, and autonomy to engage in sexual activity. Moreover, the government's general interest in protecting life and preventing suicide has far less force when applied to a terminally ill patient. The tragedy of Washington v. Glucksberg is that every day across the country, terminally ill patients are being forced to suffer longer and being denied an essential aspect of their autonomy and personhood.     

THE DISADVANTAGED BEFORE THE BURGER COURT

Decisions of the Warren Court affecting the disadvantaged involved, almost exclusively, the constitutionally protected rights of indigent defendants and voters. In contrast, the Burger Court's decision-making has included a significant volume of cases affecting the material interests of the poor. As the analysis herein demonstrates, support for the interests of the poor by the Burger Court has been negatively associated with the material quality of the interest at stake. The Court's decisions suggest a reluctance to subject governmental classifications inimical to the poor to consistent and appropriate scrutiny. An alternative scheme for assessing equal protection claims is therefore offered.