The state supreme court accepted. 4. The Federal Supreme Court hears less than 65,438,000 cases every year. Federal and state courts are divided into three levels: Federal Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeal 13, District Court 94, State Supreme Court, Intermediate Court of Appeal and County Court. Nine judges hear about 80- 100 cases every year. These cases come from thousands of cases against the final judgment of the Supreme Court's Court of Appeal. Cases involving conflicts between the federal constitution and interstate laws are decided to be tried by the Federal Supreme Court, and the judgment made by the Federal Supreme Court has universal guiding significance, which is somewhat similar to the "judicial interpretation" formulated by the Supreme People's Court and the cases published in the the Supreme People's Court Gazette. In addition to hearing cases, the justices of the Federal Supreme Court mainly go to the judicial circuit to inspect and guide the work or give lectures and study abroad. The practice of the Federal Supreme Court in discussing cases is that the minority is subordinate to the majority, but the opinions of the minority and their reasons should also be written in the judgment. When the Supreme Court discusses a case, all nine justices have to appear in court, express their opinions and make a final vote. If the opinion of the presiding judge is adopted by the majority, the presiding judge shall draft a judgment; Otherwise, it will be drafted by a majority judge appointed by the Chief Justice. Plea bargaining has been implemented in more than 90 criminal cases. In the United States, plea bargaining can be implemented in criminal cases, that is, if the defendant agrees to give up his right to defense and plead guilty, the prosecutor can prosecute lightly or suggest to the judge that the defendant be given a lighter punishment or a shorter sentence, and submit the agreement between the defendant and the defendant to the judge for review and direct judgment. Although this kind of "plea bargaining" may make the defendant's punishment incompatible with his crimes, it has reduced a lot of judicial costs for the country, which is still worthy of recognition. Plea bargaining in American criminal judicial procedure is equivalent to a kind of reconciliation, which is somewhat similar to the trial procedure that can reconcile private prosecution cases in China's criminal proceedings, but the content of reconciliation is different from mediation, because the reconciliation of plea bargaining is based on the confession of the criminal defendant, and the prosecutors of both sides are also lawyers. After reaching an agreement through consultation, it is submitted to the judge for judgment, not under the auspices of the judge. The agreement judge does not play the role of "mediator" in the settlement agreement reached by the prosecution and the defense, but the judge must ask the defendant himself whether his "confession" is voluntary and whether he knows the legal consequences of giving up these rights. If the defendant does not plead guilty, does not know the legal consequences of "pleading guilty" or the lawyers of both parties fail to reach an agreement through consultation, the case will naturally enter the ordinary procedure of jury trial. Evidence that has not been disclosed to the court shall not be presented in court. According to the federal law and most state laws, the evidence of criminal cases must be publicly disclosed by both the prosecution and the defense before the trial, otherwise, witnesses may not be shown or notified to testify in court. Of course, if the prosecution thinks that the publication of the witness's name before the trial may lead to danger, it may not be published, but at a certain stage of the trial, the witness must testify in court. At the same time, the judge will decide whether to order the judicial police to "protect" the witness according to the specific circumstances of the case and the requirements of the prosecution. There are many contents of witness protection, such as changing one's name and surname, changing one's place of residence and even plastic surgery. Seven witnesses must testify in court, otherwise it may constitute "contempt of court". Direct verbal evidence is one of the basic contents of American criminal justice system. According to the rules of procedure and evidence stipulated by American law, any witness testimony that has not been cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defense in court cannot be used as the basis for finalizing the case. With the consent of the court, both parties have the right to ask the judge to issue an order to force the witness to testify in court. The document informing the witness to testify in court is a summons. If the witness fails to testify in court without justifiable reasons, the judge may decide to arrest him and sentence him for "contempt of court". Before testifying, the witness must take an oath under the guidance of the assistant judge. Defendants in all criminal cases have lawyers as defenders. Both the ordinary procedure of jury trial and the summary procedure of plea bargaining are applicable to the trial of criminal cases, and lawyers must participate. Even if the defendant doesn't want a lawyer to defend him, the judge should appoint a lawyer to defend him, because the judge will worry that the defendant will give up the rights entrusted to him by law because he doesn't understand the provisions or contents of the law, such as giving up the right to defense and asking for a jury trial, which will affect the fairness of the judgment. 9. The court of first instance is separated from the court of appeal. In the United States, federal courts and state courts have only three supreme courts. Under this court system, the jurisdiction and trial procedure of the court of first instance and the court of second instance of the court of appeal are strictly separated. That is to say, in the first-class court, either the original trial of all kinds of litigation cases can only be conducted in the first instance, or the second trial of appeal cases can only be conducted in the second instance, and there will be no overlap and crossover. This is completely different from the system in which the intermediate courts in China have the right to conduct both first and second trials, and even have the right to review and retrial. It is understood that this practice in the United States reflects different value pursuits in different trial stages. For the original trial, it mainly reflects the democracy and justice of the trial, while for the appeal trial, it tends to pursue the legal value of the trial. 10. review and screening system for appeal cases. After the parties appeal against the judgment of the first instance, the court of appeal will not accept it unconditionally and enter the second instance procedure. The usual practice is that the judge in charge of filing a case for review in the Court of Appeal first conducts a strict review and screening of "appeal cases" that do not meet the appeal conditions. These cases generally involve the facts and evidence that have been confirmed by the court in the first instance and the rights that the parties have explicitly given up in the first instance, and then the cases that involve the application of the law or reflect serious procedural violations are formally accepted as appeal cases. 1. Regional effect of effective judgment. In the United States, although federal courts and state courts are implemented, court decisions, including rulings and orders, have the same legal effect. According to the Constitution of the United States, American courts must recognize and enforce valid judgments made by other courts, whether federal or state courts. The "recognition" here includes ensuring the finality of the judgment and ensuring the execution of the judgment. Second, the parties consciously perform the effective judgment of the metropolis, and there is basically no problem of "difficulty in execution". American judges believe that the reason for this phenomenon is that, on the one hand, the basis of consciously observing and executing court decisions is a concept. Generally speaking, Americans abide by the law because they believe in the rule of law and believe that if everyone abides by the law, society will become better rather than an obligation. In fact, in a country with many cases and complicated laws, it is impossible to force everyone to abide by the law only by the coercive force of the law. Secondly, the court has the right to punish those who do not execute the effective judgment and despise the court, that is, the debtor who does not execute the effective judgment without justifiable reasons will be investigated by law. Because of this, under normal circumstances, all litigants, from the president down to the common people, respect the court's decisions and automatically implement the decisions made by the judges, including the relevant rulings or orders made by the judges during the trial. For example, the case of 1974 America v Nixon. At that time, the Supreme Court ordered Nixon, then president, to submit a recording of his conversation with others to the local court. President Nixon tried to resist the court order, but in the end he found it difficult to disobey it, because although submitting the tape would make the presidency unstable, if he did not obey the court order, it would bring him more serious legal consequences. The court is not responsible for the specific implementation of the effective judgment. There are no special enforcement agencies and executors in American courts, so there are no data on cases accepted, executed and pending in the judicial statistics of the courts. However, the court is not responsible for the execution of the effective judgment, which does not mean that the obligee is indifferent to the request to realize his rights, nor does it mean that the debtor can stand by and watch the obligations determined by the judgment. And the right holder's "motion" on the execution of the application is reviewed as a new "lawsuit". After examination, it is considered that it meets the requirements of effective judgment, that is, issuing orders related to the implementation of measures. After the plaintiff wins the case, the other party fails to perform the judgment within the time limit. If you know where the other party put the money, if there is a bank, you can apply to the judge for an order. After examination, the judge may confirm that the plaintiff has sufficient evidence and issue a seizure order. The plaintiff may submit it to the judicial police for non-court preparation, and the judicial police may also request the assistance of the local police when necessary. If the plaintiff knows where the other party's real estate or other property is, he can first register the right to say goodbye to the body in the real estate management office. The purpose is to report to the public. The public informed that the property had been involved in the lawsuit, and then applied to the judge to issue an order for public auction and sale to the judicial police. If the debtor is an employee, the creditor may apply to the judge to issue a "third-party attachment order", requiring the company where the employee works to deduct a portion from the employee's salary regularly and pay it to the creditor. And so on. On the contrary, it is also beneficial for court judges to concentrate their energy and time on trial activities without interference and influence from non-trial affairs. 4. The enforcement of effective judgments should be handled by specialized agencies independent of the court system. The "specialized agencies" mentioned here refer to the federal judicial police and the state judicial police. After the court decision takes effect, the parties can generally perform it automatically. For a few debtors who fail to perform within the time limit, after the "motion" of sealing up, distraining and selling the debtor's property is approved by the judge, the creditor may request the judicial police to take compulsory measures against the debtor or the debtor's property by virtue of the order issued by the judge. The content of such coercive measures is very extensive. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, the federal court's decision to eliminate apartheid was systematically resisted by whites and governors in southern states, and schools that only accepted whites still refused to accept black students. At the request of the federal court, the president of the United States sent federal troops to drive away the governor and the white and black students around the school gate before they entered the campus. 5. Time limit for application for execution. In the United States, the time limit for the obligee to apply for enforcement of the court's effective judgment is generally 10 year. Under special circumstances, the applicant may also apply for a new order. This is much longer than the legal person application execution time limit of 6 months and the individual application execution time limit of 1 year. Obviously, this idea and practice of tilting the focus of legal protection to the obligee is worth learning. 6. Fees for application for execution. Obviously different from the usual practice, the legal fees charged in China, including the application execution fees, are mostly levied according to the proportion of the disputed amount or the application execution amount. In the United States, the "motion" for the parties to apply to the judge to issue an execution order is piecework, requiring the judicial police to pay the fees according to the actual expenses or deduct them from the property in full after execution, which is somewhat similar to the "actual expenses" and "actual expenses" charged by the courts in China when executing the case, including the fees and remuneration of the judicial police.