鉴定人出庭与专家辅助人角色定位之实证研究

新刑事诉讼法试图改变鉴定人出庭率低的现状,为此完善了鉴定意见审查规则;相应地,新确立的专家辅助人制度也被寄予厚望。从理论上看,保障被告方的对质权应成为上述改革的主要支点。但实证研究显示,鉴定人出庭率并没有因为新刑事诉讼法的实施而显著改善,鉴定人与法官对于鉴定人出庭都缺乏积极性;专家辅助人在法庭上的角色定位是模糊的,其在鉴定人、证人、辩护律师和其他独立的诉讼参与人等角色之间徘徊。应当围绕保障被告方的对质权来完善必要鉴定人出庭制度,在保留职权化和强调中立性的鉴定制度的同时,赋予专家辅助人意见以证据能力,以构建控辩平等的司法鉴定体系。     

公诉案件庭前审查程序重构之法理探析及初步设想

我国修改前后的两部刑事诉讼法,虽然均在公诉案件第一审程序中对庭前审查程序作出规定,但由于立法时对庭前审查程序的功能认识不够清晰,相关规定过于简单和粗疏。因此,有必要对庭前审查程序的改革问题加以深刻思考。鉴于目前对于庭前审查程序的研究多局限在具体实施问题的层面,在评析各家之说的基础上,对庭前审查程序重新进行定位,对其价值取向、理论原则等问题展开初步论证。最后提出重构我国公诉案件庭前审查程序的若干设想。     

From Centre Stage to Spear Carrier: The Repositioning of the English Juvenile Court

The approach of the new millennium poses significant challenges for the way in which the youth justice system in general, and the juvenile (now youth) court in particular, develops in the future. The past one hundred years of the juvenile court in England and Wales have seen its role both flow and ebb. It currently faces further significant repositioning. The author distinguishes four themes which have influenced the marginalisation of the juvenile court: bifurcation, diversion, manageralism and legislation of the court.     

Case Processing Times in Three Courts

The time it takes a court to process its cases, a critical aspect of court performance, varies widely from case to case, from court to court, and within a given court as the court and its environment change over time. The sources of this variation, however, have remained largely obscure.
This paper examines the structural and case-level influences on processing times in three criminal courts experiencing structural changes, including a number of administrative reforms designed to reduce processing times. We find both similarities and differences between courts, but in general both many structural arrangements and many case characteristics affect processing times, with some case characteristics having different effects under different structural arrangements, and some structural arrangements affecting different sorts of cases differently. We conclude with a discussion of implications for court management.     

弱司法审查体制必要性之证成

作为一种新型权利保障模式,英联邦国家建立的弱司法审查体制引起了比较宪法学界的广泛关注,该体制的必要性成为一项核心议题,主要内容是如何理解新模式下法院与议会的关系。对话理论问世以后,迅速成为回答该问题的统治性范式。它涵盖了法院和议会互动的各个环节,对司法实践产生了深刻影响。在后续发展中,原本重在描述弱司法审查体制的对话理论逐渐出现了规范性转向,开始针对议会和法院如何行使权力提出指导意见。但是,对话理论没有充分论证弱司法审查体制的独特性,也没有阐释该体制的价值内涵,其规范性转向因而遭到批判,需要予以补充和完善。经过重构的对话理论包括三个层次,分别论证弱司法审查体制何以可能、为何可欲以及如何可行,从而兼具解释性与建构性。尽管如此,新的对话理论仍有发展空间,需要在与实践的互动中进行调整和更新。     

The relationship between the court and the doctor on the issue of an inpatient's refusal of psychotropic medication

New procedures, tailored after such court decisions as Rogers v. Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, have restricted the doctor's ability to treat psychiatric inpatients with psychotropic medication and have increased the protection of a competent patient's right to refuse. This study investigates how the relationship between the doctor and the court has adapted to these new procedures. All 40 court cases of a maximum security forensic hospital over a two-year period were reviewed. Results suggest that the new procedures have had no dramatic effect upon either the treatment patients receive or the doctor-court relationship. While abstract arguments both in favor of and against these new procedures can be drawn from the same data, the concrete relationship still remains poorly understood.     

ROMANCING THE COURT

Problem‐solving courts, created at the end of the twentieth century, make court‐based solutions central to addressing significant societal problems, such as substance abuse and its impact on criminal activity and family functioning. Yet, lessons gleaned from over 100 years of family court history suggest that court‐based solutions to intractable social problems have rarely been effective. This article asks three questions of the problem‐solving court movement: What problem are we trying to solve? Is the court the best place to solve the problem? What are the consequences of giving authority to a court for solving the problem? Answering those questions through the lens of specific examples from family court—the original problem‐solving court—leads to the conclusion that neither the structural issues that courts face, such as overwhelming numbers of cases, nor the momentous societal issues that problem‐solving courts have recently begun to shoulder can be adequately addressed through court‐based solutions. The factors that allegedly distinguish new problem‐solving courts from earlier exemplars, especially the family court, are both less unique and less successful than they have been portrayed by problem‐solving court enthusiasts. These factors alone fail to justify the expansion of problem‐solving courts without further evidence of their effectiveness. Moreover, the potential dangers inherent in problem‐solving courts are not theoretical. By examining illustrative examples from the history of the family court, the dangers become clearly apparent.     

COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS IN COURT RECORDS AND SELF‐REPORTS*

Most knowledge about delinquency careers is derived from official records. The main aim of this paper is to compare conclusions about delinquency careers derived from court referrals with conclusions derived from self‐reports. Data are analyzed from the Seattle Social Development Project, which is a prospective longitudinal survey of 808 youths. Annual court and self‐report data were available from age 11 to age 17 for eight offenses. The prevalence of offending increased with age, in both court referrals and self‐reports. There was a sharp increase in the prevalence of court referrals between ages 12 and 13, probably because of the reluctance of the juvenile justice system to deal with very young offenders. The individual offending frequency increased with age in self‐reports, but it stayed constant in court referrals, probably because of limitations on the annual number of referrals per offender. There was significant continuity in offending in both court referrals and self‐reports, but continuity was greater in court referrals. The concentration of offending (and the importance of chronic offenders) was greater in self‐reports. An early age of onset predicted a large number of offenses in both self‐reports and court referrals. However, an early onset predicted a high rate of offending in court referrals but not in self‐reports, possibly because very young offenders who were referred to court were an extreme group. About 37% of offenders and 3% of offenses led to a court referral. The more frequent offenders were less likely to be referred to court after each offense, but most of them were referred to court sooner or later. There was a sharp increase between ages 12 and 13 in the probability of an offender and an offense leading to a court referral. It is concluded that criminal career research based on self‐reports sometimes yields different conclusions compared with research based on official records.     

委托调解的制度要素

委托调解的正当性和制度功能已为司法政策和国家治理政策所肯定。委托调解的实效发挥有赖于其制度要素的合理改进与持续完善。法院的管辖范围和可适用的审理程序决定着其是否有权进行委托调解。委托调解人应保持组织型和个人型并存的格局,可依次采用共同选定、商请法院确定和法院依职权确定三种方式予以确定。适用委托调解的案件应首先具备"可调性",且不只限于简单民事案件。依职权启动委托调解不会使参加程序的强制变为接受处理结果的强制,且可缓和合意贫困化所带来的机制紧张。处理好立案审查和立案前委托调解启动二者之间的先后关系,立案前委托调解将不会影响到对当事人之裁判请求权的妥当保障。对委托调解之期限的长度确定、延长以及是否从法定期间中扣除离不开谨慎的考量。法院对委托调解协议负有合法性审查义务且依其只能制作民事调解书。委托调解结案可收取更低的案件受理费,但不能免除。     

Black Hole of Responsibility: The Adjudication Committee's Role in a Chinese Court

How courts and judges in authoritarian regimes decide cases behind closed doors has rarely been studied, but it is critically important in comparative judicial studies. Primarily drawing on the minutes of the adjudication committee in a lower court in China, this article explores its operational patterns and decision‐making process. The data suggest that among the criminal cases reviewed by the committee, very few were difficult or significant, but a relatively high percentage of the suggested opinions of the adjudicating judges was modified. In contrast, many civil cases reviewed were difficult to resolve but the committee offered little assistance. Overall the operation and decision‐making of the committee were subsumed by the administrative ranking system inside the court and the authority of the court president was enormous. The analysis also demonstrates the limited role of the committee in both promoting legal consistency and resisting external influences. Instead of achieving its declared goals, the committee has degenerated into a device for both individual judges and committee members to shelter responsibility. The findings compel researchers to reevaluate the role of the adjudication committee in Chinese courts, and the relationship between judges and authoritarian regimes.     

Out on a Limb: Appointing a Parenting Coordinator with Decision‐Making Authority in the Absence of a Statute or Rule

This Article addresses the issue of whether a court may appoint a Parenting Coordinator (PC) with decision‐making authority in the absence of a statute or court rule. The Article identifies possible sources of authority for the appointment of a PC with decision‐making authority in a state with no authorizing statute or court rule. It also provides a paradigm for constructing an appointment that allows for the benefits of Parenting Coordination but does not delegate decision‐making authority to an extent that it would constitute an impermissible delegation of judicial authority.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court may find some authority allowing the appointment in (1) its equitable authority over child custody and visitation, (2) its authority to enforce its own orders, or (3) its authority to appoint other extrajudicial assistants such as a special master or mediator.
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court must craft an appointment that delegates enough decision‐making authority to the PC for parenting coordination to be effective yet, at the same time, not so much decision‐making authority as to render the appointment an impermissible delegation of a judicial function, specifically:
  • The PC's role should be limited to assisting the parties in implementing custody and visitation terms already decreed by the trial court.
  • A PC should be appointed only if the parties to the divorce consent to the appointment or if the trial court makes a finding that the case is a high‐conflict case.
  • The parties must have the opportunity for the trial court to meaningfully review any decision of the PC so that the trial court retains ultimate decision‐making authority.

     

CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENT WITH FOREIGN ELEMENTS IN CHINA: SHANDONG JUFENG V. SOUTH KOREA MGAME

Unlike statutory and discretionary jurisdiction, jurisdiction by choice of court agreement concluded in foreign-related civil and commercial matters should be decided by the parties. As a special contract, the choice of court agreement is so independent that its validity is governed by the law chosen by the parties or by the law of the country where the chosen court is situated in case that the choice of law is invalid. Amendments to the Civil Procedure Law (hereinafter referred to as “CPL”) of People’s Republic of China (2012) should not only include the jurisdiction by choice of court agreement with foreign-related elements, but also stipulate it in a more standardized way, rather than simply refer to provision of jurisdiction by choice of court agreement in domestic cases. At the same time, the CPL should make the scope of application of choice of court agreement more clear, and provide choice of law clause and its confirmative elements when deciding its effectiveness.     

刑事证据制度重点问题实施状况调研报告

2012年新刑诉法增加非法证据排除规则、庭前会议制度、证人出庭作证等条款,这对保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人、证人等主体权益有着积极意义,但其中也有亟需解决的问题。在非法证据排除程序方面,首先需要明确“非法证据”的范围,促使法院敢于适用排除程序,将其与侦查谋略等区分开来,也需妥善处理重复自白材料和纪检部门取得材料之适用等问题;庭前会议制度中,首先要通过立法来解决其能否处理实质问题,细化该制度的具体流程以便法院的执行;在证人出庭方面,则需要细化强制证人到庭、证人保护等制度以增强其可行性,明确侦查人员出庭的角色与程序,进一步健全鉴定人出庭制度。     

侦查人员出庭作证的法律依据辨析

侦查人员出庭作证已列入我国新一轮司法改革方案之中,但理论界对侦查人员出庭作证的法律依据一直存在争论。有的认为《刑事诉讼法》第48条规定的证人包含了侦查人员,此条即为侦查人员出庭作证的法律依据;也有的认为《刑事诉讼法》第28条关于侦查人员应当回避的规定实际上否定了侦查人员出庭作证的资格。笔者对上述意见概不同意,认为在我国现行刑事诉讼法上侦查人员出庭作证是有依据的,只是不够直接、明确,应当根据侦查人员的法定职责、审判活动的实际需要、侦查人员及侦查工作的特殊性等因素完善侦查人员出庭作证的法律依据。     

The use of technology in the transformation of business dispute resolution

The use of technology in dispute resolution mechanism can be viewed from two perspectives: first, as an aid in the conventional dispute resolution system, and second, as an online dispute resolution mechanism via the Internet. Online dispute resolution (ODR) is transforming the way disputes are being resolved, in particular, in business to consumer (B2C) transactions. ODR offers a more successful means of resolving e-commerce disputes. In fact, there is a new move by the Malaysian judiciary to transform its court system. Previously, the judiciary has been very conventional in its administration of justice, and the system is said to be slow and outdated. The court system in Malaysia has been frequently criticised because of its dilatoriness in resolving disputes, resulting in a large backlog of cases. To overcome these problems, the judiciary has introduced a new system called the e-court. New methods including as e-filing, electronic case management, queue management, and court recording and transcribing form the complete e-court mechanism.     

“She's Way Too Good to Lose”: An Evaluation of Honolulu's Girls Court

This research evaluates the efficacy of a gender-specific, problem-solving court for girl offenders. Official statistics, interview data, and focus group data are utilized to determine whether the court is achieving its stated goals of reducing recidivism, risky behaviors, and confinement for the girls who attend this court program. The present research demonstrates that the program does seem to be effective in terms of reducing both recidivism and risky behavior as well as increasing the development of prosocial and healthy relationships. The article concludes with some lessons learned from the implementation of this court program as well as ideas for future research.     

BREAKING DOWN BUSINESS VALUATION: THE USE OF COURT‐APPOINTED BUSINESS APPRAISERS IN DIVORCE ACTIONS*

This Note advocates for greater reliance on court‐appointed business appraisers in divorce proceedings. After exploring the history of court‐appointed experts in American jurisprudence and addressing the specific problems that arise when valuing a business, this Note demonstrates how neutral business appraisers can assist courts in assessing a highly technical matter while simultaneously providing both courts and parties with an accurate, reliable source of information. The Note further provides suggestions for when the appointment of a neutral appraiser may be beneficial. The second section of this Note addresses technical matters that the court must deal with in selecting a reliable expert, including where the court derives its power to appoint a neutral expert, what standards the court should use in appointing the expert, and who should pay the cost of the expert's appointment.     

Plainly Wrong

English law and wider common law jurisprudence have endorsed the condition that an appellate court should reject a trial judge's finding of fact which it believes is ‘plainly wrong’. Courts have not explained what makes a finding plainly wrong, however. Scholars have largely ignored the issue. This article draws on recent work in epistemology to provide a new analysis of the plainly wrong standard. Rationally, a court should not believe both (1) that a judge is a better fact finder and (2) that the judge was wrong to find some fact. If it does believe both, it should abandon the belief it is less confident of. So, a court should reject a judge's finding if it is more confident that it is wrong than that the judge is a better fact finder. This analysis has implications for review of administrative fact finding and for judicial deference generally.     

Official standards versus actual criteria in bond dispositions

The setting of bond in a first appearance court in one southeastern judicial district was examined to determine its relationship with official standards based on the recommendations of the American Bar Association advisory committee on standards for criminal justice and the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. Eighteen measures of five different recommended standards were considered. Only seriousness of charge showed apparent strength in its relationship with bond. The authors suggest a “facility hypothesis” (that court officials gravitated toward factors such as seriousness of charge) that may be readily processed and understood within constraints of time and organization. As added support for this hypothesis, defendants' demeanor in court is also shown to be significantly related to bond in the present study. These legal and personal criteria may be more identified as indicators of defendants' culpability than many other considerations recommended by the study commissions. Use of other official recommendations may require changes in the concepts of defendants held by court personnel or drastic changes in the organization of first appearance in court.     

Judicial postponement of death recognition: the tragic case of Mary O'Connor

A recent New York Court of Appeals decision seriously impedes the ability of incompetent patients to control their medical care. In the case of Mary O'Connor, the court virtually eliminated an incompetent's rights to bodily integrity and privacy. The court relied on formalistic evidentiary arguments to vitiate the patient's refusal of death-prolonging treatment. This Case Comment examines both the doctrine and policy underlying the O'Connor decision, suggesting that the court erred in its holding and reasoning. An alternative framework is presented, arguing that courts should honor competently expressed patient decisions concerning medical treatment. New York's highest court, instead, posited an incompetent patient who becomes competent for a moment to render a decision. This legal fiction is nothing more than a thinly masked technique for imposition of the judges' values on the patient. This Case Comment argues that in the absence of clear direction from the patient, family and loved ones generally should make care decisions for the patient.