How do American judges decide cases? It can be said that American judges only try cases in most cases and do not decide cases. How to judge? In the United States, most cases are decided by juries on "

How do American judges decide cases? It can be said that American judges only try cases in most cases and do not decide cases. How to judge? In the United States, most cases are decided by juries on "question of facts", while judges are only responsible for explaining question of law. The parties can give up jury trial and ask for a trial by a judge. In criminal cases, the jury convicts the defendant and the judge sentences him. In civil cases, the amount of damages is also decided by the jury. In the United States, millions, tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation are awarded by juries from time to time. Judges are much more cautious. But Americans don't trust the government, they don't trust judges, and they believe in themselves. The parties believe in themselves, that is, hire "gunmen"-lawyers, and fight to the death in court. Judges are relatively free, relatively free, and sometimes stand by. The judge of the first instance in the United States said privately that if it is a murder case or an adultery case, it can be transformed in the trial; When you encounter a boring business case, you are simply too sleepy to get up. In jury trial, the judge is like a referee, but only judges whether the lawyers of both sides are "normative", not judges the facts. The jury is the audience, so the judge always has the final say in the first instance in the United States. Of course, it cannot be ignored. On the football field, the world's top players were blown by the referee's "black whistle", and they were all in high spirits and lost. Similarly, judges can "make things difficult" for lawyers and force them to make concessions, thus affecting the outcome of the trial. The federal court of the United States implements a three-trial system, with the district court (first instance), the circuit court (court of appeal) and the US Supreme Court (final instance); The state courts implement a four-trial system, including the first instance, the court of appeal, the state supreme court, and the US Supreme Court. In principle, the courts above the U.S. Court of Appeal only deal with legal issues, not factual issues. If there are serious factual errors or new situations, the court of appeal will send the case back to the court of first instance for retrial. The idea of American judges is that the court of appeal only asks the trial judge whether the law is correctly applied. The trial judge and jury are on the scene, directly observing the witnesses, and have the most say on the factual issues. The Court of Appeal should try to stay out of it. The judgment of the US Court of Appeal is also "make laws". Factual issues and legal issues cannot be completely separated, and judges of the Court of Appeal sometimes bypass factual issues through legal issues. But this is only technical work; In principle, the Court of Appeal does not ask questions of fact. When hearing a case, the Court of Appeal consists of a collegial panel of three judges. The three judges have different qualifications, but there is no difference in positions, and they are equal in hearing cases. If it is a major case, the court of appeal may also be "collegiate" (all judges sit together). The United States Supreme Court consists of nine judges. A unique feature of American judges is that they allow judges with different opinions to put their opinions into their judgments. Sometimes, their opinions are diametrically opposed. Law is different from natural science. The latter is to find out the already existing laws of nature, which can be divided into right and wrong. Law, on the other hand, is a rule made by human beings themselves, and its interpretation and application are different. Since the result is two-way, justice needs to be reflected in the procedure. This is why the United States places special emphasis on "due process". Simply put, due process means that the parties (or defendants) should have the opportunity to defend themselves, and the judge is obliged to listen to the defense opinions. In addition, the judge's decision must be self-evident and consistent. This is the importance of writing a judgment. Most lawyers have distinct personalities, and American judges are also lawyers, unwilling to obey others. Institutionally speaking, the United States is independent of the judiciary, that is, the independence of judges. But American judges are rarely arbitrary and bold. Most American judges are highly respected and have been senior lawyers and professors. Climbing to the position of judge can be said to have gone through a lot of hardships, and they will not ruin their reputation for petty profits for life. American federal judges are well paid and enjoy life tenure (one of the best things in life). As long as they want, they can stay in office until they die. Justice Marshall was terminally ill when he reached the age of 8. The American "Rightists" hoped that this "leftist" would step down as soon as possible (the Supreme Court of the United States has only nine seats). Marshall refused to leave and threatened that "I just want to go in standing and come out lying down". Most American judges are greeted with smiles, and there is no idea of filth and lawlessness. American judges are well paid, do not ask for promotion and can concentrate on their work. Federal judges are well paid, and they are lifelong, without leadership and supervision, but their work is still very hard. American judges, especially the judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, regard trial as an art and are bent on surpassing their masterpieces. There are many connoisseurs in their works. One of the jobs and hobbies of American law school professors is to comment on the verdict, or applaud, or criticize. The American Bar Association grades judges every year, so judges dare not blow the "black whistle" on lawyers they hate when trying cases. The United States is a diversified country, and there are different power groups and mass organizations everywhere, which contain and restrict each other. The same is true for judges in the United States. Although they try cases independently, they also have tangible and intangible supervision or "leadership".