法定法官原则：我国管辖制度改革的新视角

我国司法实践中,常出现通过改变案件审理者而影响审判结果的现象,这与我国缺乏法定法官原则有关。法定法官原则要求法院按照预先设定的标准确定案件的管辖法院和审判法官,而不能在纠纷诉诸法院后自由裁量。我国管辖权制度改革也应当贯彻此原则,规范管辖权转移、明确级别管辖标准、禁止随意分配案件的审判法官。     

我国审级制度之重构

我国应当按审级制度的构建原理，改革目前的法院设置、职能配置以及级别管辖制度．构建多元化的审级制度，即按司法区设置最高法院、巡回上诉法院、地区法院和简易法院等四级法院系统。简易法院设小额法庭，管辖小额请求案件，实行一审终审。简易法院管辖轻微民事、刑事初审案件：地区法院管辖其余的初审案件以及来自简易法院的上诉案件：巡回上诉法院管辖来自地区法院的上诉案件。一般案件实行二审终审：但具有重大法律意义的案件和死刑案件可上诉至最高法院．实行三审终审，并建立适当的判例制度。同时改革与审级制度紧密关联的配套制度，如司法经费由中央财政予以保障；建立法官编制及法官遴选、保障、惩戒制度；改革法院内部的分工与管理；废除审判监督程序．改设再审之诉程序等等。     

判例生成与中国案例指导制度

依据法律功能主义,我国案例指导制度可纳入广义的判例制度之中。判例生成制度是判例制度的物质基础。我国指导性案例的生成,主要依赖最高人民法院的司法外权力,采取不以司法等级权威为基础的案例选拔方式,没有遵循普遍的形式主义进路,没有严格依傍法院体系和审级制度,其实效有待观察。最高人民法院和高级人民法院都应成为判例法院,并可遴选自己法院的案例为指导性案例,现行案例遴选标准大体符合判例遴选的一般原理。判例遴选制度对应的是有限援引制度,有限援引制度在成文法语境中并不会面临普通法语境中的正当性质疑,案例指导制度应允许法官直接援引指导性案例。案例指导制度的未来发展应与我国整体司法改革彼此深化、相互促进。     

我国案例指导制度若干问题研究

案例指导制度是我国推进司法改革的过程中,保障司法公正的重要举措,它对于保障裁判的统一、规范法官自由裁量权、保障法律的准确适用等都具有十分重要的意义。案例指导制度建立之后,其将与司法解释制度相辅相成,共同发挥解释法律、统一裁判尺度、保障法律的准确适用的功能。建立案例指导制度的关键在于,要明确指导性案例的效力。指导性案例发挥作用的关键在于,通过"识别"确定系争案件与指导案例之间是否存在类似性,指导性案例不限于漏洞填补情形下的指导,还包括各种事实认定、法律适用的典型案件的指导。     

激活判例机制 提升司法权威

施行"依法治国","建设社会主义法治国家",必须确立和提升司法权威。司法公信力的大敌是"司法不公"。"司法不公"源于"司法不一"。"司法不一"源于法官的"自由裁量权"过大。法官的"自由裁量权"过大又源于"成文法"的不确定性。因此,有必要引进"判例"机制,实行"裁判自律",实现大体相同的案件得到大体相同的判决。以此来确立和提升司法的公信力。最高人民法院近年试行的案例指导制度应当继续实践和推广。     

我国案例指导制度的实践运作及其评析——以《最高人民法院公报》中的知识产权案例为对象

《最高人民法院公报》"案例"栏目历年来共发布了90余件知识产权案例,这些案例按内容可分为5类:新类型案件、有重大影响的案件、正确适用法律的案件、疑难案件和创设司法规则的案件。数据表明,《最高人民法院公报》案例以正确适用法律为主要导向,同时注重案例的社会影响,但并未体现出着重解决疑难、复杂法律问题的特征。考察发现,《最高人民法院公报》中的案例在形式上逐渐规范化,但在准确、完整反映裁判内容、恰当归纳裁判摘要方面,还存在一定的不足。调查显示,《最高人民法院公报》案例"事实上的拘束力"为多数法官所接受。因此,以《最高人民法院公报》公布"案例"的方式确立的案例指导制度在实践中的运作是有效的。     

论建立与行政区划适当分离的司法管辖制度

司法去地方化、行政化的深层次问题是：地方同级党政领导可以通过人财物控制法院院长个人,来控制整个法院的意志;院、庭长通过行政管理权控制主审法官这个人,来控制主审法官的意志。探索建立与行政区划适当分离的司法管辖制度,将有效改善我国的司法地方保护主义现象,遏制司法行政化,确保人民法院依法独立公正行使审判权。目前可以最高人民法院设立巡回法庭为改革的突破口,设立七大巡回区法庭,代表最高人民法院通过提级管辖或指定管辖的方式审理跨省域的案件;高级人民法院的重新调整、整合可以暂置一旁,与正在试点推动的省以下地方法院、检察院人财物统一管理改革相呼应,高级人民法院作为改革主体,应具体提出如何在本行政区建立与行政区划适当分离的司法管辖制度的规划方案,因为全国90%以上的案件是在基层、中级法院审理,司法的去地方化、行政化在这两级法院尤为急迫。为建立这一制度,应当坚持与行政区划相分离、原则性与灵活性相统一、方便诉讼以及适当分离的原则,设置独立的行政法院系统。     

司法改革之美中法官制度比较初探

司法制度是一国法律的基本内容与核心。而无论是西方英美法系国家还是大陆法系国家,法院在司法体制中充当维护法律权威和施行法律的重要作用。如果把法院比作机器,法官无疑为这个机器正常运行的燃料。"从法律上说,被授权在法院里对某些案件或问题做出判决者是法官。"在社会的发展过程中,法官制度的不断革新促进了宪政的完善和司法制度的发展不断完善。因此,一批富有法律素养的高质量法官是支撑着一国司法运转的重要部分。本文主要通过对中美两国不同的法官制度相比较,来追寻着两个国家法官制度的规律性内容以及发展的方向,对重构法官制度、深化司法改革进行探讨。     

英国的治安法官制度及其借鉴意义

治安法官制度是指不具备职业法官资格的普通公民直接被任命为法官，以兼职方式到法院就特定种娄的案件，大致独立地进行审判的制度。文章在介绍英国治安法官制度的适用法院、治安法官的选任、构成、培训及其职权行使等方面内容并展望其前景的基础上，分析了治安法官制度对我国司法改革进程的重要意义。     

我国“案例公布制度”的实证考察及其启示

自1985年起,最高人民法院采用《公报》的形式定期向国内外公开发布典型案例,以为下级法院在审判同类案件时"提供范例"。但"案例公布制度"并没有很好地实现指导全国各级人民法院的审判工作,统一法律适用标准的初衷。目前司法实践中还存在着同案差异性审判、同案的重复性审判、案件的机械性裁判和地方法院各自统一法律适用标准等现象,这些现象的出现主要是由于"案例公布制度"自身存在的诸多制度性缺陷所致,因而需要在制度层面予以完善。     

类案检索机制的设计原理与实施评估

类案检索机制从2017年8月1日提出以来,最高人民法院和各级人民法院密集出台了实施规范。类案检索机制的原理是:法官依托类案检索系统,全面检索与其待办案件类似的案件,法官依据检索结果制作类案检索报告,法官对同类生效案件裁判尺度与正在审理的案件进行比较,以类案类判为标准作出裁判。针对我国类案检索机制在实施中的问题,将来的类案检索机制应当从以下几个方面进行完善:优化裁判文书数据库、改进技术应用手段、完善检索规则、确立类案识别标准、公开类案检索结果。     

为判例制度正名——关于构建我国判例制度的思考

我国当前并无明确的判例制度,但实际上存在着＂近似判例制度＂,如案件请示批复制度是有实无名的判例制度,案例选编公告制度是心照不宣的判例制度,案例指导制度是欲言又止的判例制度,这些制度有诸多不足。随着社会的发展和司法实践的需要,我国应当建立判例制度。建立判例制度有利于维护法律的稳定性,树立法律的权威;有利于矫正我国的近似判例制度,树立司法的权威;有利于提高我国个案审判和判决书的质量,树立法官的威望。我国构建判例制度的基本思路应当是,使判例制度与法律方法相结合,使判例制度与司法解释制度相结合。我国应当构建一个由最高人民法院和审案的人民法院共同制作判例、由最高人民法院发布判例的判例制度,这是构建我国判例制度的关键。     

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.     

刑事诉讼审级制度之反思与重构

现代各国的刑事诉讼审级制度虽有一定差异,但多是以三审终审制为原则确立的。随着市场经济的发展和我国法院改革的不断深化,现有四级两审终审制的缺陷已不断显现,并与现代审级制度的一般原理相悖。现有审级制度在程序设计上以及在与司法体制相融合时表现出的渚多缺陷,已经影响到对被告人诉讼权利的保护和司法公正的实现,因此需重新建构以三审终审为原则,以一审终审为补充的刑事诉讼审级制度,同时实行法院的职能分层,规范再审制度。     

QUESTIONS ABOUT FAMILY COURT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT

Increasingly, family courts are seeking ways to focus limited resources on cases that require the most intervention, tailor court responses and dispute methods to each case, and account for the real differences among domestic violence cases. One of the means to that end may be the triaging or screening of cases. This article raises a number of questions about screening and urges that they be addressed by courts and communities that are considering whether and how to design a screening protocol. Issues include: How should we define domestic violence for the purposes of screening? Who should carry out the screening? How can we maximize the likelihood that we will fully assess the context of the violence in each case? How should we assess the risks or dangers inherent in the parties’ situation? How should a screening effort account for changing circumstances as a case proceeds through the courts? How can information gathered in a screening effort improperly impact subsequent decisions of the court?     

建立我国案例指导制度的困境和出路——以刑事案例为例

案例指导制度是一项既区别于英美法系判例法制度又不同于大陆法系判例制度的中国特色产物,是我国司法观念变革与制度变革相结合的一项新制度,是一种能够体现中国特色、并顺应世界两大法系逐渐融合发展大趋势的制度变革措施。本文指出了消除相关障碍是建构案例指导制度的前提,论证了案例指导制度在我国建构的必要性和可行性,同时从指导案例的选择标准与要求、指导性案例的产生程序、案例指导制度的监督机制、案例指导制度的修缮机制等四个角度,提出了构建刑事案例指导制度的具体路径。     

Reconciling Quinlan and Saikewicz: decision making for the terminally ill incompetent

One of the most perplexing problems in the medicolegal field concerns the criteria on which decisions not to treat terminally ill incompetent patients should be made. These decisions traditionally have been made by physicians in hospitals--sometimes with the assistance of the patient's family--on the basis of their perceptions of the patient's "best interests." Recently, two state supreme courts have ruled on this question. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in the Quinlan case, developed a medical prognosis criterion, and permitted the patient's guardian, family, and physicians to apply it with the concurrence of a hospital "ethics committee." The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in the Saikewicz case, adopted, on different facts, the test of "substituted judgment" to be applied by a probate court after an adjudicatory hearing. The two cases have been interpreted by many in the medical profession as representing conflicting viewpoints--one supportive of traditional medical decision making and the other distrustful of it. It is the thesis of this Article that Quinlan and Saikewicz are in fundamental agreement and can be reconciled by the next state supreme court that rules on this question. Both courts enunciate a constitutional right to refuse life-sustaining treatment, based on the right to privacy. They agree that incompetents should be afforded the opportunity to exercise this right, and that certain state interests can overcome it. They agree also that physicians should be permitted to make medical judgments, and that societal judgments belong in the courts. The differences in how the opinions are perceived result from the interplay of several factors: the differences in the facts of the cases; the inarticulate use of the term "ethics committee" by the Quinlan court; the literal interpretation of the role of such a committee by the Saikewicz court; a desire for 100 percent immunity on the part of physicians and hospital administrators in Massachusetts; and advice from their counsel on how such immunity can be guaranteed. It is the author's hope that this Article will help to dispel much of the misinformation surrounding these two cases, and to refocus the debate on how decisions should be made for the terminally ill incompetent patient on the real issues regarding criteria and the decision-making process that remain to be resolved.     

No Confidence: Confidentiality,Ethics and the Law of Academic Privilege

The law recognizes several evidentiary privileges, including a qualified privilege recognized by statute or court precedent in forty-eight states and several federal circuits that allows journalists to protect confidential sources. Meanwhile, ethical practices for social science surveys require pledging confidentiality to respondents, a practice that can conflict with subpoenas and court orders requiring revelation of such information. Only a handful of court decisions have formally recognized a privilege for scholars similar to a reporters’ privilege, and an examination of the court decisions that have either ruled on or discussed the issue reveals that while many courts recognize the interests of scholars in confidentiality, most courts decline to recognize a legal privilege for researchers. Courts do, however, often limit disclosure to accommodate these concerns. The specific circumstances and rationales of these decisions are discussed and analyzed.     

UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION TRIAL COURT JUDGES

An examination is made of the extent to which limited jurisdiction trial court judges make unique contributions to court policies. The methodology and political implications of minor court research differs from those in higher courts. Analysis of variance found that minor court judges in multiple-judge courts differed in the level and uniformity of fines and costs assessed in misdemeanor cases. Binary tests for regression discontinuity found that judges in single-judge courts initiated policy changes upon entering office. Such knowledge of unique judicial contributions would enable citizens and court officials to make informed decisions in judge selections and court reforms.