Go homepage(回首页)
Upload pictures (上传图片)
Write articles (发文字帖)

The author:(作者)左
published in(发表于) 2013/11/13 7:22:53
Nanjing Jiangning District Court pilot 7 full courtroom of jurors to speak

Court pilot project "7" full Court to witness jury jurors court court statements

Recently, Jiangning district, Nanjing, Jiangsu Court judges with 1 plus 4 jurors, respectively "5-man" of the collegiate bench and 2 judges and 5 jurors "7" the full Court to hear two civil cases, officially beginning the prelude to full reform.

According to introduce city intermediate people's Court of Nanjing, two pilot courts case sensitivity is strong, with close relations with the masses as applicable full court system focus of the trial, including marriage and family type, neighbourhood disputes, inheritance disputes and other cases.

Range of choices is mainly on account of the case can benefit both the judge in the trial of brainstorming, also contributed to the people's assessors had to say, prevent a jury trial "stand".

　　Reality of trial motions placed single-prone

He Jiahong, Professor at Renmin University law school think, placed a single formation is complex. Trial sessions, one of the highlights is the trial of the blur.

Trial was supposed to be the center of criminal links, full Court is the real body of the administration of Justice. In China today, however, witnesses failed to appear, record flooding, trial motions, magistrates ' dossier.

Passed by the national people's Congress Standing Committee's decision on improving the people's jury system since its implementation in 2005, and received attention at all levels of the people's jury system, juries both in quantity and quality have improved significantly.

However, "keep without trial", "useless" matter cannot be fundamentally resolved.

He Jiahong said, Chinese courts online "Webcast" section under "is now in session" column published by 2010 1 December an empirical analysis of 292 criminal cases were heard.

177 the inquest with a jury trial cases, composed of 1 and 2 cases of jurors form a collegial panel of judges is 130; by 2 judges and 1 form a collegial panel of jurors in cases is 47.

The vast majority of jurors in court during the trial heard before playing a negative role. Of the 177 cases of jury, 98.31% juror in court there is no questions 69.49% juror does not exchange with the presiding judge in the trial process.

　　And not on the waste of judicial resources

Fengcheng city people's Court of Jiangxi province Huang Zhaolin, President shares the view that cases from small full after Collegiate and then discussed by the Audit Committee decided to "secondary motion" approach, to a great extent caused by waste of judicial resources.

Little full Court "without discussion", "discussion" and the CRIC "broken without trial" and "trial separation" justice is difficult to eliminate variations in trial practice, is not conducive to improving the quality of trials, trial work is not conducive to improving management efficiency.

2012-statistical data, for example, the annual number of cases disposed 2,316 total, 128 of which closed in the form of sole-judge bench, in the form of small plenum closed 355 through CRIC discussion closing 268.

Consume fewer human resources of sole-judge bench ruling cases are few in number and human justice resources used more "small collegiate" or "CRIC collegiate" high proportion of cases, indicating decide cases overall effectiveness is not high.

　　Doubt pushed the case to the Committee for

In practice, cases submitted to the CRIC discussion too much, so caught up in the Committee in the cases under discussion, has squeezed other important trials of time and space. Many different cases using "little full-Board" the second collegiate (discussion), collegiate small plenum as predecessors of the attention of the Committee to discuss the program, resulting in wasteful of human resources of the judiciary.

Huang Zhaolin analysis think, in recent years, the homes strengthened has cases quality management, especially strengthened has cases hosted people of responsibility, attention on judgment cases of appeal rate, and revision rate, and made back retrial rate, indicators of examination and cashes, provides except by trial Board will discussion decided of cases outside, where was superior court revision or made back retrial of cases are for responsibility finds, and divided and held.

So, undertaker of the case in order not to be held responsible, small panel consisting of cases as much as possible on the one hand, on the other hand as much as possible will find no cases before the Committee to discuss, so as to reduce or evade trial liability that might arise.

　　Promote reform of collegiate bench trial to ensure that "tiean"

2009 Guangdong announced that major criminal cases will be composed of 5 to 7 people a collegial panel and secure a stand up to historical and legal examination of "tiean".

Henan and Shandong provinces have launched and implemented a full Court of the court system reform.

Court, Jiangbei district, Ningbo, Zhejiang province from August 2013 to commence, "grand jury" reforms, civil and commercial cases in major trials using 1 4 jurors and judges of collegial 1+4 models.

Facing the country's court system reform of collegiate bench system, Professor He Jiahong said, "full" system reforms would help prevent the occurrence of wronged and misjudged cases and can be completed with judicial independence.

　　Experts recommend modifying perfection of jury system full Court

He Jiahong said that under the provisions of China's criminal procedure law article 147th "grass-roots people's courts and intermediate people's Court of first instance in case should be decided by judge three people or three people form a collegial panel composed of judges and people's assessors were ... ... Higher people's Court, the Supreme People's Court of first instance in cases should be decided by judges three to seven members, or by the judges and people's assessors collegial panel composed of three to seven people. "

In other words, procedural law stipulates that cases of first instance in cases before the high or Supreme People's Court from 3 to 7 persons form a collegial panel.

　　Major case optional "7" full Court

He Jiahong said, when you modify procedural law should indicate the increase, "tried by the intermediate people's Court in some parts of the complex criminal cases of first instance can be used '1+6' or '2+5' mode, that is, 1 6 2 judges or jurors and judges and 5 jury composed of '7-a ' collegial panel. ”

Can choose qualified intermediate people's Court as a pilot unit, handling complex criminal cases of first instance use "7-a" collegiate bench. Experimental reform of 1-2 years.

Trial court first to develop rules, defendants have the right of choice. In court can be sure to use "7-a" collegiate bench trial cases, the Court elected to seek advice from the defendant before the jury. If the defendant has agreed to adopt the "7" the full Court trial, on the formation of "7" a collegial panel; if the defendant does not agree, still use "3" the full Court trial.

　　If convicted jurors say

He Jiahong believes that jurors court chosen at random. In determining composition "7-a" collegiate bench trial cases, the Court before the trial of the people's juror list randomly selected 20, told the court day in court to attend court of elections.

Chamber elections, presiding judge random propaganda from the present candidate and questions in order to confirm their ability to impartially participate in the trial, while allowing the prosecution for the declared candidates applying for the withdrawal.

He Jiahong, Professor suggested that when the jurors in the trial, you can put questions to accused persons, victims, witnesses, prosecutors and defenders can requirements described on related issues; jurors after the trial you can consult the dossier can also review various forms of evidence.

Finally, the full Court to review the case before, jurors have the right to fully express their views during the review. Plenum vote after referees force without examination Committee for approval. This version of text/Wang Xiaofei

　　法院试点“7人”合议庭陪审员庭上询问证人 人民陪审员庭上要发言

　　近日，江苏省南京市江宁法院分别按照1名法官加4名陪审员的“5人制”合议庭和2名法官加5名陪审员的“7人制”合议庭，审理了两起民事案件，正式拉开了大合议庭改革试点的序幕。

　　据南京市中院介绍，两家试点法庭把敏感性强、与群众关系密切的案件作为适用大合议庭制度审理的重点，主要包括婚姻家庭、邻里纠纷、继承纠纷等案件类型。

　　案件范围的选择主要是考虑能够既有利于法官在审判中集思广益，也有助于让人民陪审员有话可说，防止人民陪审员成为审判的“摆设”。

　　现实问题庭审走过场冤错案频发

　　中国人民大学法学院教授何家弘认为，冤错案件的形成原因错综复杂。就审判环节而言，突出的问题之一是庭审虚化。

　　庭审本应是刑事诉讼的中心环节，合议庭本应是司法裁判的真正主体。但是在当下中国，证人不出庭，笔录大泛滥，庭审走过场，裁判看案卷。

　　全国人大常委会通过的《关于完善人民陪审员制度的决定》自2005年实施以来，人民陪审制度得到了各级法院的重视，陪审员的数量和质量都有了明显的提升。

　　但是，“陪而不审”、“形同虚设”等问题未能从根本上得到解决。

　　何家弘称，曾对中国法院网上“网络直播”栏目下的“现在开庭”子栏目所登载的2010年1－12月审理的292起刑事案件进行了实证分析。

　　在有陪审员参与审判的177起案件中，由1名法官和2名陪审员组成合议庭的案件为130件；由2名法官和1名陪审员组成合议庭的案件为47件。

　　绝大多数陪审员在法庭审判过程中扮演了消极听审的角色。在上述177起陪审案件中，98.31%的陪审员在法庭上没有提问；69.49%的陪审员在庭审过程中没有与审判长进行过交流。

　　合而不议浪费司法资源

　　江西省丰城市人民法院院长黄兆麟同样认为，案件由小合议庭合议后继而由审委会讨论决定的“二次议案”做法，在很大程度上造成司法资源浪费。

　　小合议庭“合而不议”、“议而难决”以及审委会“断而不审”和“审判分离”等司法变异现象在审判实践中难以消除，不利于提高案件审判质量，也不利于提升审判工作管理效能。

　　以2012年度统计数据为例，该院全年审结各类案件数共2316件，其中以独任庭形式结案的128件，以小合议庭形式结案的355件，通过审委会讨论结案的268件。

　　占用人力司法资源较少的独任庭判决的案件数量少，而占用人力司法资源较多的“小合议”或“审委会合议”的案件比例高，说明判决案件的整体效能不高。

　　案件拿不准推给审委会

　　实践中，提交审委会讨论的案件偏多，使审委会缠身于案件讨论之中，挤压了从事其他重要审判工作时空。很多案件都是通过“小合议庭—审委会”二次合议(讨论)，把小合议庭的合议作为提请审委会讨论的前置程序，造成司法人力资源浪费严重。

　　黄兆麟分析认为，近年来，该院加强了案件质量管理，尤其是强化了案件承办人的责任，重视对判决案件的上诉率、改判率、发回重审率等指标的考核和兑现，规定除经审委会讨论决定的案件外，凡被上级法院改判或发回重审的案件一律进行责任认定、划分和追究。

　　于是，案件承办人为了不被追究责任，一方面尽可能地组成小合议庭审理案件，另一方面尽可能地将拿捏不准的案件提交审委会讨论，以分散或推脱可能产生的审判责任。

　　推行改革大合议庭试行确保办“铁案”

　　2009年广东宣布，重大刑事案件将组成5至7人的大合议庭，力保办成经得起历史和法律检验的“铁案”。

　　河南、山东等法院也相继推出并实施出合议庭制度改革试点工作。

　　浙江省宁波市江北区法院也从2013年8月开始试行“大陪审制”改革，即在重大民商事案件的审判中采用由1名法官和4名陪审员组成合议庭的1+4模式。

　　面对全国各地的法院系统实施合议庭制度改革，何家弘教授表示，“大合议庭”制度的改革能有利于防止冤假错案的发生，并且能够使司法审判独立地完成。

　　专家建议修改陪审制完善合议庭

　　何家弘称，根据我国刑事诉讼法第147条的规定“基层人民法院、中级人民法院审判第一审案件，应当由审判员三人或者由审判员和人民陪审员共三人组成合议庭进行……高级人民法院、最高人民法院审判第一审案件，应当由审判员三人至七人或者由审判员和人民陪审员共三人至七人组成合议庭”。

　　也就是说，诉讼法中规定，一审案件在高级或者最高人民法院审理的案件由3至7人组成合议庭。

　　重大案件可选“7人”合议庭

　　何家弘教授说，在修改诉讼法时，应注明增加，“一些地区的中级人民法院在审理重大复杂的一审刑事案件时可以采用‘1+6’模式或‘2+5’模式，即1名法官和6名陪审员或2名法官和5名陪审员组成‘7人制’合议庭。”

　　可以选择具备条件的中级人民法院作为试点单位，在审理重大复杂的一审刑事案件时采用“7人制”合议庭。改革试点的时间为1至2年。

　　试点法院首先要制定相应的规则，被告人享有选择权。在法院确定可以采用“7人制”合议庭审判的案件中，法庭在选任陪审员之前要征求被告人的意见。如果被告人同意采用“7人制”合议庭审判，就组成“7人制”合议庭；如果被告人不同意，就依旧采用“3人制”合议庭审判。

　　是否判有罪陪审员有发言权

　　何家弘认为，陪审员要当庭随机挑选。在确定组成“7人制”合议庭审判的案件中，法庭在开庭前从本院的人民陪审员名单中随机挑选20人，通知他们在开庭日到庭参加庭选。

　　庭选时，审判长从到庭的候选人中随机宣叫并提问，以便确认其是否能够公正地参与本案的审判，同时允许控辩双方针对被宣叫的候选人提出回避申请。

　　何家弘教授建议，陪审员在参与审判时，可以向被告人、被害人、证人提问，也可以要求公诉人和辩护人就相关问题进行说明；陪审员在庭审之后可以查阅案卷材料，也可以审查各种形式的证据。

　　最后，合议庭对审理的案件进行评议，评议期间陪审员有权充分发表自己的意见。合议庭表决之后，裁判生效，无须报审委会批准。 本版文/王晓飞

赞