Special Masters in the Pretrial Development of Big Cases: Potential and Problems

This article explores the advantages and disadvantages of referring discovery matters in complex cases to special masters. In the first section Brazil explains how the results of his earlier research into the discovery system exposed problems that the appointment of masters might help solve. He then describes the kinds of pretrial tasks and roles federal courts have assigned to special masters and the ways that using a master can expedite and rationalize the case development process. In the second half of the article, the author assesses the major objections to delegating judicial responsibilities to masters and the problems that frequent appointments might cause. Along the way, Brazil offers practical suggestions to judges about how to avoid potential difficulties and how to maximize the effectiveness of this increasingly popular procedure.     

Referring Discovery Tasks to Special Masters: Is Rule 53 a Source of Authority and Restrictions?

The author concludes that federal judges who want to appoint special masters to perform duties related to civil discovery may not look to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for authority to do so. By examining the historical backdrop against which the original rules were written, as well as the minutes of the proceedings of the first Advisory Committee, Brazil demonstrates that neither Rule 53 nor any other rule was designed to grant federal trial courts power to assign pretrial discovery tasks to special masters. In fact, the evidence the author marshalls shows that the original Advisory Committee explicitly rejected the idea that the Federal Rules should authorize even a limited role for special masters in connection with discovery depositions.
Finding no authority for such appointments in the Federal Rules, the author turns to the judiciary's "inherent power." Drawing principles from the seminal Supreme Court opinion in this area, Brazil infers that in some circumstances the courts' inherent authority is a sufficient premise for delegating discovery tasks to special masters. Noting that the reported cases contain no clear guidelines about when or how federal judges should use this authority in making pretrial appointments, Brazil concludes by calling for a new federal rule covering this important subject.     

Views from the Front lines: Observations by Chicago Lawyers About the System of Civil Discovery

This is the first in a series of articles that will report the results of a pilot effort to assess how well the system of civil discovery is working and to identify the principal problems which burden that system. The study revolves around interviews with 180 Chicago area litigators. This first essay, which synthesizes observations, insights, and complaints by interviewed attorneys, suggests that the world of civil discovery is not one monolithic whole, but consists of subworlds which exhibit clearly distinguishable features and problems. In addition to describing the principal problems which afflict the discovery system in its two major subworlds, the author reports what the interviewed lawyers suggest are the primary causes of those problems. While the litigators identify many ways in which the character of lawyering encumbers and disrupts the discovery process, they also locate much of the blame for the system's problems in the behavior of judges and the inefficiency of the judicial machinery. The interviews produced a dramatically widespread appeal to the courts to increase use of sanctions as a means of restraining discovery abuse.     

Judicial Management of the Pretrial Process in Massive Litigation: Special Masters as Case Managers

This article reports on the experience of Special Masters appointed to regulate pretrial phases of a large civil antitrust suit. It describes techniques for expediting discovery, determining claims of privilege in production of documents, establishing stipulations of undisputed facts, and controlling and resolving disputes arising in discovery. It suggests a "managerial" approach to pretrial that is flexible and experimental and that may be useful in controlling the pretrial phase of other "big" cases.     

Pretrial Detention in India: an Examination of the Causes and Possible Solutions

The average rate of pretrial detention in India is 20 per 100,000 of the general population, which is less than half the global average. However, as of 2013, the number of pretrial detainees as a proportion of all prisoners is 67.6 %—over twice the global average. This article seeks to understand the causes of such a high proportion of pretrial detention. Answering this question will help evaluate the present governmental response to the problem of pretrial detention. The article begins by examining the laws and practice of pretrial detention in India and then tries to explain the disjuncture between the two by analysing, first, the role of various functionaries, namely the police, prosecutors, judiciary and prison officials; second, the profile of the pretrial detainees and their (in)ability to post bail and, finally, the (in)effectiveness of the existing legal aid system. It posits that while partly a result of relatively low overall convict populations, the high incidence of corruption; shortage of human, physical and monetary resources and governance and lack of coordination contribute to the high number of pretrial detainees in the prison population in India. It then concludes by describing existing solutions and referencing the practice in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which face similar problems and have similar laws and institutional structures.     

Civil Discovery: Lawyers'Views of Its Effectiveness, Its Principal Problems and Abuses

This article, the second in a three-part series based on interviews of 180 civil litigators in Chicago, describes lawyers'assessments of the health of the discovery system and their views about the relative severity of several major problems and abuses that burden the discovery process. The data present a disturbing picture of the way the discovery system functions, especially in larger cases. Big case litigators are much unhappier with the current state of affairs in discovery than are their smaller case counterparts, and apparently for good reason. Tactical jockeying, evasive and dilatory practices, and various forms of harassment play major and costly roles in a high percentage of large lawsuits. And in at least one of every two big cases the discovery system fails to distribute the relevant information to all the parties. Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of disaffection with the current state of affairs in major litigation, however, is the widespread support the lawyers expressed for more aggressive judicial involvement in the process and for more frequent, telling use of sanctions to punish its abusers.
The third article in this series will report the lawyers'reform proposals and will explore some of the implications of the data described here.     

论民事诉讼中的经验法则

由于立法的语焉不详,实践中法官对待经验法则的态度呈哑铃型的极端:避用和强用.鉴于经验法则在认定事实和适用法律上的独特价值,我们认为极端型适用模式并不可取,构建并完善该制度及其配套机制以充分发挥其功效才是司法者应有的态度,本文以司法实践中部分典型民商事案件为视角,缕析了经验法则的适用现状、困境.解构了经验法则的属性、局限...     

论美国经济制裁中的总统权力边界

美国具有较为完善的经济制裁体系,主要依据《敌国贸易法》和《国际经济紧急权力法》对外实施单边经济制裁。虽然《国际经济紧急权力法》是国会限制总统权力的法律,但是在内容上却给予总统以广泛的行政权力。总统既享有固有的外交权力,又获得国会赋予的对外贸易管制权,而司法部门在涉外问题中基于政治问题和国际礼让原则,并不做司法审查,总统经济制裁的行政权力扩张得到了立法与司法的支撑。在美国经济制裁中,立法权、行政权与司法权受商业利益、个人追求与党派之争的影响,逐渐脱离法治轨道。从宪法授权以及美国经济制裁的发展历程上看,经济制裁措施存在不完全符合宪法等要求的问题,我们在应对美国经济制裁时可从这些问题着手加以研究。     

无独立请求权第三人制度的内部冲突与制衡

无独立请求权的第三人制度在我国的民事诉讼的理论和实践中存在许多问题 ,表现在 :无独立请求权的第三人诉讼地位与实体责任之间的冲突 ;第三人参诉方式与司法的被动性的冲突 ;无独立请求权的第三人参诉理由的模糊等。文章在比较大陆法系辅助参加人制度与普通法系追加第三人制度的基础上 ,认为我国的无独立请求权的第三人制度的改革 ,应选择大陆法系辅助参加人的制度模式。在第三人辅助参加的理由方面 ,我们认为应限定为 :基于同一标的物、同一事件或同一事项对当事人一方有义务性法律关系     

Low-Level,but High Speed?: Assessing Pretrial Detention Effects on the Timing and Content of Misdemeanor versus Felony Guilty Pleas

Abstract

While numerous studies have examined pretrial detention and felony case outcomes, little empirical attention has been devoted to misdemeanor pretrial detention. We theorize that misdemeanants detained for a longer proportion of time will plead guilty quicker because the costs of fighting their charges in jail often outweigh the sanctions they face. Utilizing data on 165,630 felony and misdemeanor cases from Miami-Dade County, Florida, during a 4-year period (2012–2015) we assess whether the effects of pretrial detention length on the timing and content of guilty pleas differ across lower-level and upper-level courts. Survival analyses and multinomial logistic regressions indicate that misdemeanor cases overall and those involving lengthier pretrial detention are resolved faster, with most resulting in non-carceral sanctions such as credit for time served (CTS). Given that misdemeanors make-up the bulk of U.S. criminal cases, these findings reveal important insights about how pretrial detention impacts case-processing dynamics in lower courts.     

股东出资瑕疵民事责任的比较研究

通过比较我国与其他国家在公司资本制度的法律规定、股东出资的法律规定、股东出资瑕疵的民事责任的法律规定三个方面的具体内容,合理借鉴其他国家的相关法律制度。在民事责任相关法律制度的构建中,应当确立过错责任原则、为违约提供法律救济、完善发起人的责任。     

Coping with Conway v. Rimmer [1968] AC 910: How Civil Servants Control Access to Justice

The article, based on a review of files in the National Archives, examines the role of civil servants in claims for the suppression of state documents at trial on grounds of public interest immunity (PII). Government lawyers solicited responses from other ministries to the landmark Lords decision in Conway v. Rimmer and coordinated the civil service campaign against this unwelcome judicial intrusion into their professional domain. The decision was seen as a threat to confidentiality and the secret cultivation of administrative expertise. Academic debate on the evolution of the PII doctrine has centred on the allocation of responsibility between an overly deferential judiciary and ministerial concern to avoid political embarrassment. The role of civil servants may have been more coherent and ideologically motivated than previously appreciated. As the courts increasingly challenge government claims for suppression of material at trial, the article highlights the historical factors determining the executive's innate instinct for secrecy.     

重思民事责任能力与民事行为能力的关系——兼评我国《侵权责任法》第32条

民事责任能力在本质上是广义民事行为能力的一种,与狭义民事行为能力即法律行为能力并列,它是当事人对其过错行为承担民事责任的法律前提。广义民事行为能力概念具有深厚的历史根基,我国民法学者对其进行批判是因为对其历史脉络缺乏了解。民事责任能力的认定应采抽象标准与具体认定相结合主义。我国《侵权责任法》第32条存在诸多缺陷,应通过法律解释或修订予以完善。     

论民事诉讼证据的收集

民事诉讼证据制度是民事诉讼制度的核心。目前我国尚未形成完整的民事诉讼证据制度体系。我国现行民事诉讼证据收集制度存在弊端,致使当事人搜集证据困难。应完善证据收集程序,加强民诉证据收集的法律保障,笔者建议尽快制定通过《证据法》,以法律形式完善证据提供的一般法律义务制度;完善当事人违反证据提供义务的法律制裁制度;完善证人出庭作证制度。     

走向现代刑法:违法性认识的规范展开

在"刑民不分"的前现代法律中,"不知法不免责"之"法",主要是伦理法、民商法,"责"则主要是采客观归责的侵权责任.而在"刑民有别"的现代法律中,由"前置法定性与刑事法定量相统一"的法益保护和不法制裁的部门法层级结构和比例分配所决定,客观构成要件中的规范要素以前置法的规范评价为核心,相应地,行为之前置法不法性认识乃主观构...     

论民事证据排除程序的结构

证据排除程序的结构,是指排除程序中各方主体之间的法律地位和法律关系。本文以证据排除程序是否独立于证明力评价程序及本案诉讼程序为线索,对两大法系证据排除程序的具体阶段构造进行了考察。按照当事人权利与法院权力的关系,可以将证据排除程序的横向结构分为行政程序结构、非讼结构与诉讼结构。这三种结构的正当性依次增强而效率性依次减弱,需要根据具体情况进行设置。     

Sanctions in Pre-Trial Discovery

In this paper, we make an economic analysis of various sanctions for disobedience to the discovery request in the common law tradition and in the civil law tradition mainly by examining their effects on settlement rates and social welfare. We find that sanctioning through inference discloses less information and encourages less settlements than both sanctioning by default judgment and sanctioning adopted in the civil law tradition. Also, we show that sanctioning through inference used together with financial sanction duplicates the outcome under default judgment if the penalty size is so chosen as to be equal to the defendant's discovery cost.     

Is the Process the Only Punishment?: Racial–Ethnic Disparities in Lower-Level Courts

Although misdemeanors make up the bulk of criminal cases in the United States, the majority of research on court decision-making examines felony sentencing. In contrast to felony courts, lower-level courts are characterized by higher case volumes and increased reliance on informal sanctions, which may contribute to greater racial–ethnic disparities. To assess this possibility, we examine pretrial detention and case processing outcomes for misdemeanants in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Utilizing temporal (detention time) and monetary (bond amount) measures of pretrial detention, we assess whether and to what extent there are racial–ethnic disparities in formal and informal sanctions facing misdemeanants. Results indicate that black defendants, especially black Latinx defendants, face greater informal sanctions (longer detention and higher bond amounts), are more likely to be convicted, and experience more severe formal sanctions than do white non-Latinx defendants. These findings complicate Feeley's (1979) argument about lower-level cases, revealing that black defendants are punished by both the court process and formal sanctions. In this way, “the process is the punishment” for lower-level white and nonwhite defendants, while the punishment is also the punishment for black defendants.     

民事证据随时提出、同时提出抑或适时提出——兼评《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法修正案(草案)》第65条

在法定顺序主义下,主张已经固定,有完善系统的审前程序,实行证据同时提出主义和逾期失权制度则有其合理基础。在自由顺序主义中,无审前程序固定主张和争点,则只能实行证据随时提出主义,但证据随时提出主义无法集中审理和诉讼拖延的弊端决定着其让位于增设审前程序后的证据适时提出主义。不像美国的证据开示制度,我国民事诉讼法不能随意证据失权,只能实行相对温和的证据适时提出主义,但也需相应完善审前程序。     

陶行知校长学的七个命题探析

陶行知校长学是陶行知结合具体的办学管校实践系统阐释校长工作的思想体系。它主要由七个命题构成：一、校长是学校的灵魂，务必有高尚的品行；二、校长要有使命感、责任心和同情心：三、校长要有自己独立的学校观；四、校长要敏于行，做一个行动的校长；五、校长要有创造意识和创造能力；六、校长要做民主的倡导者和领导者；七、校长工作是一项专门事业，需要也值得校长全身心地投入。