不管你是一个想要复习基础知识的法律系高材生 还是一个有抱负想要从头学起的法律系学生 这门课都将帮你打好一切你需要在法学院成功完成学业基础 本课程将介绍一些律师和法律学者在陈述观点时会使用到的 专业术语、概念和工具 它将帮助你理解他们的观点 并能够独立陈述自己的想法 这门课由一系列简短的课程和作业组成 每一堂课都会有补充的阅读清单 它会为你提供一个学习路线图 帮助你更深入地探索这个主题 虽然课程与课程之间会相互引用 但本质上它们是一体的 你可以轻松根据自己的时间安排、兴趣和需求点 按照任意顺序来学习本门课程 翻译: DAN YAN | 审阅: Coursera Global Translator Community
4.1 - Lecture
Loading...
來自 Yale University 的課程
法律系学生的工具
471 個評分
與講師見面
Ian AyresWilliam K. Townsend Professor
Yale Law School
[MUSIC]
The standard of review is the amount of deference given by an appellate court to
various determinations made during an earlier part of the adjudication.
There are three basic review standards,
Clearly Erroneous, De Novo, and Abuse of Discretion
that grow out of three different kinds of lower court determinations.
Questions of Fact tend to be reviewed on what is called a clearly erroneous basis.
Questions of fact are for the jury to decide.
But you should keep in mind that all bench trials that add bench trials,
judges can also decide questions of fact.
The Trier of Fact can assess the demeanor of witnesses and
hence has an advantage over appellate courts in deciding factual questions,
because the appellate courts only have before them the paper record.
Because the Trier of Fact is better placed to make factual determinations,
appellate courts will only set aside a question of
fact determination if it is clearly erroneous.
Thus, even if the appellate judge believes that she would've found differently
as a Trier of Fact, she as an appellate judge may be forced
by the clearly erroneous standard to uphold the finding.
A related, but less differential standard of review, substantial evidence,
calls upon an appellate court to uphold a jury's question of fact determination,
unless the determination is not supported by substantial evidence.
But if you wake me up in the middle of the night and
ask me, what's the standard of review for questions of fact?
I'm gonna tell you, it's clearly an erroneous standard.
In contrast to questions of fact,
lower courts also make determinations about questions of law.
At an initial trial, questions of law for the judge to decide.
Whether the defendant sold synthetic marijuana would be a question of fact for
the jury.
Whether selling spice violates a criminal statue is a question of law for
the judge to decide.
In contrast,
the questions of fact the lower court is deemed to have no advantage.
Evidentiary or otherwise in deciding questions of law.
Accordingly, appellate courts gives absolutely no deference
with regards to lower court determinations about questions of law.
Questions of law are reviewed on a de novo basis,
meaning that the appellate court should decide those kinds of
questions as if we're deciding the issue from scratch, De Novo.
The reasoning of the lower courts
analysis should only be deferred to the extent that it's persuasive.
Appellate courts, as a theoretical matter, should treat the reasoning of the trial
court as though it were an additional brief from one of the litigants.
Something to be considered, but not deferred to.
Because of the stark difference between the deference given to questions of
law and questions of fact, it's crucial for appellate courts to be
able to distinguish between what questions fall into which categories.
The problem of categorization is made all the harder
It was made all the harder as there is also an intermediate
category of determinations called mixed questions of law and fact.
The treatment of these intermediate questions are annoyingly complex,
but if I had to summarize while standing on one leg, I'd say appellate courts
give clearly erroneous review to mixed questions when factual
issues predominate and give to no role review when legal questions predominate.
Or, the realist in me suspects the courts might apply a sliding scale of deference
depending on the extent to which factual questions or legal questions predominate.
There's one last important standard of review and
that is the abuse of discretion standard.
When a judge is given the discretion to do something such as issue an injunction,
an appellate court will only overturn that action
if it determines that the original act was an abuse of discretion.
Somewhat surprisingly, for most of our country's history,
there was no well worked out jurisprudence of what constituted a question of law or
a question of fact.
Much less what constituted a mixed question of law and fact.
But then in the 1980s, the judges on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided
informally to include in each opinion an explicit discussion of
what standard of review they were applying with regard to each issue on appeal.
This informal circuit court rule had a dramatic impact on the law.
Suddenly there were hundreds of cases explicitly grappling
with what was the appropriate standard of review.
The West Key Number System, which you will learn, catalogs under different
key numbers, which cases address, which specific issues,
suddenly saw an explosion in the number of cases discussing the standard of review.
Now nearly all the circuits have adopted the practice and
appellate litigants explicitly brief the standard of review issued
that should be applied in each appeal.
So the tool here, as you're reading appellate decisions,
Is to, and especially older decisions, is to pay attention to which standard
of review the court applied to particular issues.
In the older decisions, they won't tell you which one they are applying so
you're gonna have to infer it.
More specifically, when you read an opinion,
you should ask did adequate deference to jury determinations of factual questions?
More generally, learning the standard reviews allows
you better appreciate how our system limits and narrows the grounds for appeal.
If you've won below on a factual issue you are in much better position
then if you've won on a question of law.
And now for discussion should appellate deference be as great,
now that technology is providing HD videos of witness demeanor?
[MUSIC]
