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。
![证据法课前英语阅读资料Word格式文档下载.docx](https://file1.bdocx.com/fileroot1/2023-1/31/d9e1711a-e5c6-4752-a08a-48ba34c9504a/d9e1711a-e5c6-4752-a08a-48ba34c9504a1.gif)
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