证据法课前英语阅读资料Word格式文档下载.docx

证据法课前英语阅读资料Word格式文档下载.docx

《证据法课前英语阅读资料Word格式文档下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《证据法课前英语阅读资料Word格式文档下载.docx（136页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

Pro.RonaldAllen0

（4月19日至4月22日）0

4月19日第二章全部（原文91-138）0

ChapterTwo0

JURORDECISION-MAKING33

Attribute33

4月20日原文第一章（pp.1-90）38

CHAPTERONE39

4月21日ChapterThreeRelevancy,ProbativeValue,andtheRule403Dangers（原文139-174）138

缺PP.157—174页的电子稿（第三章第二节证明力与规则403危险,）151

4月19日第二章全部（原文91-138）

ChapterTwo

_____________________

TheProcessofProof:

HowTrialsareStructured

Asyoubeginyourstudyofthelawofevidence,itcanbeusefultoputyourselfintheroleofthetriallawyertryingtopresentacasepersuasivelytothejury.Thisnecessarilyrequiresyoutoimagineatthesametimehowthetrialprocessappearstothejurors.Itisabewilderingmixtureofthefamiliarandtheunfamiliar.Tobeginwith,mostlitigatedeventsinvolveconventionalhumanaffairs.AlthoughtheprisonsettingintheJohnsoncaseisoutsidethepersonalexperienceofmostpeople,thecrucialquestionfordecisionissimplyhowafightcameabout,whichreduces,asistypical,tothequestionofwhomtobelieve--here,theinmateortheguards.Althoughtheissuesthattypifylitigationareusuallywithingeneralexperience,thedecisionmakingmethodologydiffersradicallyfromthemannerinwhichanordinarycitizenmakesdaytodaydecisions.Thetrialsettingisunusual,perhapsonoccasionmystifying,andoftenintimidatingforjurors.Indeed,athemerunningthroughthetrialprocessthatyoumayhavealreadydetectedistheinsulationofthejuryfrommuchofwhathappensduringtrial.Although,historically,jurieswereallowedtodecideissuesoflawaswellasfactBevenaslateastheendofthe19thcenturyintheU.S.Bthemodernjurydecidesonlyfactualissues.Therefore,virtuallyalllegaldiscussionBincludingthepropersubstantiveandprocedurallawtobeappliedtothecase,andwhetherevidenceshouldbeadmittedorexcludedBoccursoutsidethehearingorpresenceofthejury.Relativelybrieflegaldiscussionsinthemidstoftrialmaybeconductedinasidebarconference,inwhichthelawyersandjudgetalkinlowvoicessonottobeheardbythejurors.Longerdiscussionsareheldeitherinthejudge=schambers,or,ifinthecourtroom,attimeswhenjurorsarenotpresent.

Thisthemeofjuryinsulationalsorunsthroughtheevidencecourse,because,toalargedegree,therulesofevidencefocusdirectlyonthequestionofwhatevidencethejurywillbeallowedtohear.Thepolicyimplicationsofmostevidencerulesarethereforebasedonsomeone=sanswertothequestion:

whatistheeffectonthefairresolutionofdisputesofallowingajurytoconsiderthistypeofinformation?

A.TheAdversarySystem

Therulesstructuringlitigation,includingtherulesofevidence,arederivedfrom,andimplement,thedominanttheoryofdisputeresolutioninthiscountry,knownastheadversarysystem.Adversepartieseachpresentaself-servingversionofthetruthtoapresumablydisinterestedfactfinder,judgeorjury,whichhearstheevidencethepartiespresentanddecidesinadisinterestedfashionwhatactuallyhappened,andthuswhatverdictisappropriate.Theadversarialprocess,inturn,isderivedfromaconceptionoftheappropriateroleofgovernmentintheresolutionofdisputesbetweenprivateindividualsandbetweenthestateandanindividual.Thegovernmenthastheobligationtoprovideafairanddisinterestedforumfortheimpartialresolutionofdisputes;

andforthemostpartthatisallthegovernmenthasanobligation,oraright,todo.Evenincriminalcases,thecourtsstandapartfromtheprosecution,treatingtherepresentativesofthesovereignasthoughtheywererepresentingaprivateparty.Thepartiesareresponsibleforinvestigatingthecase,preparingthecasefortrial,andinlargemeasurecontrollingthepresentationofevidenceattrial.Inthiscountry,manybelievethatadversarialinvestigationandpresentationofevidenceismorelikelytoyieldaverdictconsistentwiththetruththanisaprocessmoredominatedbyatribunal.

Thisconceptionoftheroleofthegovernmentintheresolutionofdisputesisnotuniversallyshared.IntheAinquisitorial@systemsofmanyWesternEuropeancountriesdisputesarenot"

private"

matterstotheextentthattheyareintheUnitedStates,andtheadjudicativetribunalofteninvolvesitselfactivelyininvestigation,andcontrolsthetrialprocessmuchmorethanthelitigantsdo.Thosewhofavorcontinentalsystemsareinclinedtotheviewthatcontrolbyadisinterestedtribunalwillleadtolessabuseandmanipulationoftheevidence,thusincreasingthechancesthatjudgmentsconsistentwiththetruthwillemerge.Foradiscussionoftheseandrelatedmatters,seeMirjanDamaska,TheFacesofJusticeandStateAuthority（1986）;

MirjanDamaska,EvidentiaryBarrierstoConvictionandTwoModelsofCriminalProcedure,121U.Pa.L.Rev.506（1973）;

JohnLangbein,TheGermanAdvantageinCivilProcedure,52U.Chi.L.Rev.823（1985）;

RonaldJ.Allen,StefanKö

ck,KurtRiechenberg,andD.TobyRosen,TheGermanAdvantageinCivilProcedure:

APleaforMoreDetailsandFewerGeneralitiesinComparativeScholarship,82Nw.U.L.Rev.705（1988）;

MirjanDamsaka,EvidenceLawAdrift（1997）.

B.TheRolesoftheTrialParticipants

Althoughprobablyquitefamiliartoyoufromfictionalandreal-lifecourtroomdramas,thewell-definedrolesofparticipantsinatrialareworthbrieflyreviewing:

Witnessesarepeoplewithknowledgeofoutofcourteventswhoarecalledontorevealthatknowledgeincourt,underoath,infrontofthejudge,jury,andlitigants.

Thejury（meaningeachofitsmembers）usesitssensestoperceiveinformationinthecourtroomanditsreasoningcapacitytoevaluatethatinformationandtheargumentsofcounsel.Jurorsareexpectedtocometoconclusionsaboutdisputedfactsinthecasewithoutbringingtobearanyoutsideorfirsthandknowledgeoftheirown:

typically,theyknownothingaboutthecasebeforehand,and（asintheJohnsoncase,page[***6]）,areinstructedbythejudgenottoinvestigatethefactsontheirown.Asistypical,thejuryinstructionstheJohnsoncasedidnotgivethejuryanyguidanceaboutwhatitsreasoningprocessshouldbe,otherthantodefineAinference@andAcircumstantialevidence,@andtoruleoutcertainAirrational@factors:

emotions,thenumberofwitnessesonaside,chance,orthedrawingoflots.Pages[***95,98,and101]supra.

Theadvocatesprovideinformationtothejurythroughtheuseofwitnesses,documents,andotherexhibits.Becausethejuryispassive,theroleoftheadvocatesistoinvestigate,interview,select,prepare,andpresentthesourcesofinformationthattheadvocatesthinkwillmostadvancetheirrespectivecases.Thiscompetitiveprocessisattheheartoftheadversarysystemofproofanditresultsinthepresentationofcompetingandcontradictoryversionsofevents.Theadvocatesalsoargueinferencesandconclusionstothejury,butthejuryisinstructedthatattorneys'

statementsarenotevidence.

Thejudgecontrolsthetrialprocessbysettinglimits,primarilypursuanttotherulesofevidence,ontheadvocates'

proofintheinterestsofrationalityofresults,ofsocialandmoralvalues,andofefficiency.Thejudgehaspowertomakeallthetrialparticipantsconformtotheirrolesincourtroombehavioranddecorum.Inaddition,thejudgemaycallwitnessesandmayquestionwitnesseswhethercalledbythecourtornot.SeeFRE611and614.Butthejudgeisnotsupposedtocontrolthecontentortheoverallpresentationoftheadvocates'

cases.Thus,judgeintheJohnsoncaseinstructedthejurythatneithersidehadtoproduceallwitnesseswhomighthaveknowledgeofthefacts,orpresentallobjectsordocumentsthatmightbementioned.Page[***97]supra.Throughoutthiscourseyoushouldaskwhetherthejudgeshouldhavethepowertokeepknowledgeaboutthedisputedfactsfromthejury.

Anoteonbenchtrials:

Therulesofevidencehavebeencreatedandshapedovertimewiththejuryinmindasthefactfinder.However,manytrialsareheldwithoutajury.Whilethepartiesinmostcriminalcasesandmanycivilclaimsfordamageshaveaconstitutionalrighttotrialbyjury,thepartiessometimeswaivethatrightandagreetoatrythecasetothejudgewithoutajury.Inaddition,manycivilcases--primarily,thoseseekingso-calledAequitable@relief,suchasinjunctions--aretriedbeforeajudgewithoutajury.InsuchAbenchtrials,@thejudgeactsnotonlyasthedecisionmakeronpointsoflawandadmissionorexclusionofevidence,butalsoasthesolefactfinder,weighingtheevidence.AsimilarsituationispresentedbyAevidentiaryhearings@:

pre-trialproceedings（suchasapreliminaryhearinginacriminalcase）inwhichwitnessesarecalledtotestify.Therulesofevidencetypicallyapplyinbenchtrialsandevidentiaryhearings,butbecausenojuryispresent,theapplicationoftherulesmayberelaxedsomewhat.Thetheoryisthatajudge,duetoexperienceandprofessionaltraining,candisregardinadmissibleevidencefarmoreeasilyandeffectivelythanajury.Therefore,erroneousadmissionorexclusionofevidenceisthoughttobelessproblematic;

andthejudgecancouchfindingsinsuchawayastoclaimthatthedecisionwouldnotbeaffectedbyaparticulardoubtfulevidentiaryruling.

C.TheStructureoftheTrial

1.Pretrialmotions

TrialsusuallybeginwithAmotionsinlimine@（pronouncedAinlim-in-ay,@meaningAatthethreshold@）.Thesearemotionsmadebythepartiestoobtainrulingsonanticipatedevidentiaryproblems.Partiesanticipatingtheintroductionofproblematicevidencebytheiradversariesmakemotionsinliminetoexcludethatevidence,thoughm