Expert Testimony on Psychological Injury: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

This article introduces psychologists to aspects of the legal process most pertinent to their role as expert witnesses in civil litigation. It summarizes the role of psychological evidence in the adjudication of common law tort claims, the structure of the court system, and the stages of the litigation process. It also explains the various roles a psychological expert may play during litigation and the implications of those roles for expert confidentiality and disclosure. The article then provides an overview of legal policy governing the admissibility of psychological expertise, especially as admissibility is affected by the “Daubert” standard applied in most North American courts.     

环境民事公益诉讼法律适用困境及其破解

环境民事公益诉讼在司法实践中已得到大量运用,但其存在以下法律适用上的问题:第一,在对具体个案是环境民事公益诉讼还是其他私益诉讼的性质判断上,现有裁判存在显著差异。第二,在环境民事公益诉讼与类似案件的审理中,不同案件裁判者在程序选择与裁判结果上也呈现各异的走向。原因在于该诉的法律适用中存在"公共利益"等现有民事法律体系难以评价的规范性构成要件。究其根源,是该诉的独立请求权基础尚未得到明确。因此裁判者在审案时通过"借用"环境侵权之诉等类似诉讼请求权基础进行涵摄时,其法律适用过程就容易产生混同。明确环境民事公益诉讼请求权并精细该诉的法律规则,有助于环境民事公益诉讼程序的公正运行与裁判结果的日趋统一。     

关于举证责任倒置与司法公正的思考

本文以侵权责任法的出台为契机,结合目前医患纠纷司法实践中备受社会广泛关注的举证责任倒置这一热点问题,仔细梳理了我国《民法通则》、《医疗事故处理条例》和《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》等法律法规与司法解释的相关规定,援引国外相关案例进行剖析,并从举证责任分担规则上如何更能体现司法公正提出立法建议,以期对当前医患纠纷的司法解决体现公平公正有所裨益。     

Tort tales and total justice: Exploring attitudes toward everyday tort claims for workplace injuries

Despite some retrenchment, the litigation state remains alive and well. All this litigation has engendered intense debates over whether increased lawsuits represent a rising tide of justice or a flood of frivolous claims. Tort law has been at the center of these debates for decades, standing at the fault line between “tort tale,” “total justice,” and “mixed” narratives about the perils and benefits of litigation. In this article, we use a survey experiment to probe attitudes toward claims for workplace injuries in light of these narratives. We find that our participants held multifaceted views. On one hand, they favored making claims over doing nothing or asking family members for help and saw lawsuits as equally appropriate as filing a government claim or hiring a lawyer to send a demand letter. On the other hand, tort tale themes cast a subtle shadow over our participants' views. When told claimants did not rush to the courts in defiance of tort tale expectations, our participants saw the lawsuit as more justified. Indeed, the more remedies exhausted prior to litigation, the more justifiable the lawsuit seemed, even though repeated denials of claims might undermine faith in their merits. The bottom line, we contend, is that attitudes toward litigation reflect not only the choice of remedy but also how remedies are used, even when the underlying claim is meritorious—a point that could be useful to practitioners and advocates as they weigh claiming options as well as litigation and public communication strategies.     

医疗侵权构成要件举证责任分配的流变

我国对医疗侵权诉讼的举证责任分配方式进行了几次重要的修改,从而出现了医疗侵权构成要件举证责任分配的流变,大体分成了三个阶段,每个阶段的医疗举证责任都有很大的改变,笔者就每个阶段的医疗举证责任特点进行详细的阐述并分析其中转变的原因。同时,笔者就《侵权责任法》对医疗举证责任的修改进行了评析并给出自己的司法解释建议。     

医疗侵权构成要件举证责任分配的流变

我国对医疗侵权诉讼的举证责任分配方式进行了几次重要的修改,从而出现了医疗侵权构成要件举证责任分配的流变,大体分成了三个阶段,每个阶段的医疗举证责任都有很大的改变,笔者就每个阶段的医疗举证责任特点进行详细的阐述并分析其中转变的原因。同时,笔者就《侵权责任法》对医疗举证责任的修改进行了评析并给出自己的司法解释建议。     

民事诉讼当事人诉讼权利的法律救济

当事人民事诉讼权利的法律救济是在法律上对民事诉讼当事人诉讼权利受到侵害的纠正和补救,它是当事人民事诉讼权利的对语,没有救济就没有权利。面对现行法有当事人民事诉权利却没有权利救济与司法活动中司法者侵害当事人诉论权利的现实,为当事人民事诉讼权利救济作理论上的论证并促成立法的完善乃当务之急。     

‘In this Day and Age’: Social Facts,Common Sense and Cognition in Tort Law Judging in the United Kingdom

Tort law judging in the United Kingdom includes judicial ‘truth claims’ or ‘social facts’ about the world, society, and institutional and human behaviour. Although corrective justice and rights scholars assert tort law is autonomous and internally referential, social facts can be influential in tort decisions. While there is some evidence of judicial use of empirical research, many social facts are based on judicial notice, judicial common sense, and intuition. Social facts, often based on judicial common sense, play a role in tort judging. However, they can also be fertile ground for the introduction of cognitive bias and judicial error. The role of social facts in tort judging is not confined to ‘policy’ reasoning but includes social framework, context, and background. Emerging research on judicial cognition can help explain the nature and impact of common‐sense social facts. There is a need to consider potential responses to judicial use of social facts and judicial cognition.     

Fair Share Housing for Managed Growth

The Mt. Laurel decision represents the culmination of judicial thinking in exclusionary zoning type litigation. Implicit in decisions striking down local land use controls found to be “exclusionary” in nature has been the notion that a community has a legal duty to accept a “fair share” of the housing needs of the region. Fair share housing now begins to take on some substance with the New Jersey court's decision. Similar language on responsibilities for regional needs may be found in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions in Kit-Mar and Girsh, and in the federal district court's opinion in Petaluma.     

刑事证据制度:从逻辑规则向程序规则的演进——以非法证据排除制度为切入点的分析

本文以非法证据排除制度为样本,对2012年刑事诉讼法修改后证据制度的发展和变革作了梳理,讨论了为规范司法机关诉讼活动,保障公民基本权利,在充分考虑中外法律传统、诉讼模式等方面差异,充分考虑国情并借鉴外国先进经验的基础上确立非法证据排除制度时的考量因素.非法证据排除制度的建立,体现了我国刑事证据制度从以逻辑推演规则为基础...     

恶意诉讼侵权之责任主体与救济路径

诉权行使的副产品为诉权之滥用。因此,为了有效防止诉讼、仲裁等纠纷解决方式被滥用,对恶意诉讼侵权责任的主体应持广义论。本文认为,除当事人外,诉讼代理人、鉴定人、证人乃至裁判者如果与当事人存在合谋或者独立实施了严重的程序滥用行为,应被追究侵权责任。作为法定之债,恶意诉讼的侵权责任应当通过审判程序来追究和实现。提起恶意诉讼侵权之诉是主要途径,具有普适性,而在本诉中提起反诉,或在原仲裁程序进行当中提出反请求,则具有合并审理的效率优势。     

审判中心视角下的行政诉讼制度构造

"以审判为中心"的政法政策同样适用于行政诉讼制度改革,它要求法院发挥自身司法能力和司法制度能力,有效地介入涉法行政争议之中,并藉此保护法益。在行政诉讼中,司法权与行政权之间是法律监督上的国家权力结构关系。法院优位于行政机关,法院作为独立裁判者指挥诉讼管理关系和裁判过程。以审判为中心的行政诉讼制度构造,应最大限度地发挥法院司法能力在解决行政争议上的优位角色,应完整地发挥行政诉讼法的制度能力,即发挥立法、司法解释、司法组织及指导性案例的制度功能。行政诉讼司法准入、行政机关负责人出庭应诉、诉讼管辖、庭审制度等,是否体现了"以审判为中心"的制度改革方向,主要看其是否有利于行政争议的实质解决和法益有效保护。"多元化纠纷解决机制"政策和行政行为合法性审查为中心的行政诉讼制度,影响了法院的诉讼角色和功能。回归司法权和诉讼制度本质,宜在行政争议、行政行为和法益之间构造出一致性的诉讼结构关系;宜从组织和体制改革转向程序改革,发挥行政程序和司法程序在塑造司法公正和司法效率上的作用。     

民事证据排除裁判及其效力

证据排除纠纷的主体是当事人,当事人对于解决这种纠纷应当享有处分与主导的权利。因此应当给予当事人以基本的听证保障,构建起正当的证据排除程序。而合适的裁判形式的选择也关系到当事人的权利保障和法院职权的顺利行使。中间判决是适合于民事证据排除的裁判形式。民事证据排除裁判具备争点效。应当在我国构建合适的证据排除裁判。     

In Defense of Asbestos Tort Litigation: Rethinking Legal Process Analysis in a World of Uncertainty, Second Bests, and Shared Policy-Making Responsibility

A central question in American policy making is when should courts address complex policy issues, as opposed to defer to other forums? Legal process analysis offers a standard answer. It holds that judges should act when adjudication offers advantages over other modes of social ordering such as contracts, legislation, or agency rule making. From this vantage, the decision to use common law adjudication to address a sprawling public health crisis was a terrible mistake, as asbestos litigation has come to represent the very worst of mass tort litigation. This article questions this view, arguing that legal process analysis distorts the institutional choices underlying the American policy‐making process. Indeed, once one considers informational and political constraints, as well as how the branches of government can fruitfully share policy‐making functions, the asbestos litigation seems a reasonable and, in some ways, exemplary, use of judicial power.     

Independent judicial research in the Daubert age

The Supreme Court's Daubert trilogy places judges in the unenviable position of assessing the reliability of often unfamiliar and complex scientific expert testimony. Over the past decade, scholars have therefore explored various ways of helping judges with their new gatekeeping responsibilities. Unfortunately, the two dominant approaches, which focus on doctrinal tests and external assistance mechanisms, have been largely ineffective. This Article advocates for a neglected but important method for improving scientific decisionmaking--independent judicial research. It argues that judges facing unfamiliar and complex scientific admissibility decisions can and should engage in independent library research to better educate themselves about the underlying principles and methods. Independent research, however, is controversial. A survey of state appellate judges shows sharp divisions on the issue, and at the same time, the rules governing independent research are astonishingly unclear. The Article responds to the likely objections some judges have to independent research and also offers a way of interpreting the existing laws to permit the practice. Finally, the Article assesses independent research's chances for success as a method of scientific evidence reform. Based on the survey results, it concludes that a substantial number of judges will indeed take up the mantle of independent research. An equally substantial portion will likely resist, however, raising deeper issues about the importance of uniformity in judicial practice.     

“诉累”的法经济学分析

“诉累”是司法界经常使用的一个术语。从法经济学的角度看“诉累”的产生原因在于普法力度不够、司法权力寻租、低下的司法效率、委托代理、较高的诉讼成本、行政机关对司法活动的干涉、较低的司法素质。诉累导致“租的耗散”、激化社会矛盾,导致司法公信的丧失和“理性”的违约行为。应加强普法活动、切实保证司法独立、全面提高司法人员的素质,健全法律援助制度、确立权力与责任相统一的原则。     

环境公益诉讼的性质识别、原告寻找与审理机关专门化

环境公益诉讼因缺乏有力立法支撑,处于一种司法实践先于立法的混乱局面。从对2007年1012年国内公开报道的30起环境公益诉讼案件的司法裁判文书进行实证研究发现：环境公益诉讼无论诉讼目的还是救济方式均不同于传统诉讼,它是在原有诉讼体系上“重生”的一种新型诉讼;为实现维护环境公益的目的,这样一种新型诉讼的原告资格应赋予公民个人、环保团体、环境行政机关及检察机关,并且应由专门审判机关进行审理。     

非法证据排除规则的实证研究——以法院处理刑讯逼供辩护为例

中国三个地区法院处理刑讯逼供辩护案件处理情况的调研结果表明,非法证据排除规则在司法实践中处于尴尬境地。其中有立法技术方面的原因,也有司法制度和价值观念层面的原因,因此,在完善非法证据排除规则上,不能仅限于证据规则层面的努力,而应该在更广阔的视野中进行改革,以推动相关配套制度的完善。