1、Judicial System 司法系統(tǒng)（課文及翻譯）Overview of the Judicial System in the United StatesPart One Courts 第一部分 法院 There are fifty-two separate court systems in the United States. Each state, as well as the District of Columbia, has its own fully developed, independent system of courts and there is a separate f

2、ederal court system. The federal courts are not superior to the state courts; they are an independent, coordinate system authorized by the United States Constitution, Art. ,2, to handle matters of particular federal interest. The presence of two parallel court systems often raises questions concerni

3、ng the relationship of the state and federal systems, presenting important issues of federalism. The United States Supreme Court, composed of nine justices, sits as the final and controlling voice over all these systems. 美國共有五十二個獨立的法院系統(tǒng)。哥倫比亞特區(qū)以及每一個州都有其自己充分發(fā)達和獨立的法院系統(tǒng)，另外還有一個獨立的聯(lián)邦法院系統(tǒng)。聯(lián)邦法院并不高于州法院；它們是由美

4、國憲法第 3條第 2款授權的一個處理涉及特定聯(lián)邦利益的事項的獨立的并列存在的系統(tǒng)。存在兩套平行的法院系統(tǒng)經常會引起關于州和聯(lián)邦系統(tǒng)的關系問題，這是聯(lián)邦主義的重要問題。由九位大法官組成的聯(lián)邦最高法院位于所有這些系統(tǒng)之上，具有最終的和支配性的發(fā)言權。 Although a few states, such as Nebraska, have a two-tiered system, most states, as well as the federal courts, are based on a three-tiered model. That means that for any litiga

5、nt there will be the opportunity to plead his case before a trial court and then, should he lose, there are two levels of appeal at which he ultimately may succeed. For example, in the federal system the trial court is the United States District Court, of which there is at least one in every state.

6、Many larger states are divided into two, three or even four judicial districts, depending on population, geography and caseload. There are ninety-four districts in the United States and each district court has one judge, or more commonly two or more. After an adverse judgment in the district court,

7、a litigant may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the district court is located. There are eleven numbered intermediate appellate courts in the federal system, each including anywhere from three to ten states and territories. Additionally, there is a Court of Appea

8、ls for the District of Columbia, hearing appeals from the federal district court there, and one for the Federal Circuit, taking appeals from various specialized federal tribunals, such as the Claims Court. Each court of appeals has four or more judges who sit in panels of three to review district co

9、urt decisions, as well as some decisions of administrative agencies. A losing litigant in the court of appeals may, in some cases, be able to obtain review by the United States Supreme Court. Cases in the state courts similarly may proceed through a trial court, a state appellate court, and then the

10、 state supreme court. If a federal constitutional question is involved the decision of the state supreme court may be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. Since 1988, review by the Supreme Court in civil cases is discretionary; virtually all civil appeals as of right to the highest court hav

11、e been abolished.盡管不少州如內布拉斯加有一個兩級體制，而聯(lián)邦法院和大多數州都是三級模式。這意味著對于任何訴訟當事人，都有機會在審判法院陳述案情，如果他敗訴了，那么還有兩級上訴的權利，而他最終有可能在上訴中勝訴。比如，在聯(lián)邦系統(tǒng)內，受理法院是美國地區(qū)法院，每個州都至少有一個審判法院。許多大的州根據人口、地理以及待處理案件數量等因素劃分為兩個、三個甚至四個司法管轄區(qū)。美國共有94個地區(qū)，而每一個地區(qū)法院有一個或者通常有兩個或者更多的法官。在地區(qū)法院做出對自己不利的判決之后，訴訟當事人可以上訴到該地區(qū)法院所在的巡回審判區(qū)的美國上訴法院。聯(lián)邦系統(tǒng)內共有11個按數字排列的中級上訴法院，

12、每一個都包括三到十個州或者其它屬地。另外，哥倫比亞特區(qū)有一個上訴法院，受理來自當地聯(lián)邦地區(qū)法院的上訴案件，以及一個為聯(lián)邦巡回審判區(qū)而設立的上訴法院，受理來自各種特別的聯(lián)邦法庭如索賠法院的上訴案件。每一個上訴法院都有四個以上的法官，他們其中三人組成合議庭對地區(qū)法院的判決以及一些行政機關的決定進行審查。在某些案件中，在上訴法院敗訴的訴訟當事人可能會獲得聯(lián)邦最高法院的審理。各州法院的案件同樣可以經過審判法院、上訴法院和州最高法院這樣一個過程。如果涉及聯(lián)邦憲法問題，州最高法院的判決可能受到聯(lián)邦最高法院的審查。自從 1988年以來，最高法院可以自由裁量是否審查民事案件；而實際上所有的民事案件都作為（當事

13、人的）權利而上訴到最高法院的做法已經被廢除了。Three-tiered systems vary on the role which the highest court plays. The approaches taken reflect differing philosophies with regard to what the highest court should do. For example, in California only criminal cases in which capital punishment has been imposed are appealable

14、as of right to the state supreme court. Similarly, in the federal courts, except in a few very limited circumstances, appeals to the United States Supreme Court are discretionary, by writ of certiorari. The Court decides for itself what are the most important questions that deserve its attention and

15、 will refuse to review decisions raising issues that it feels are not as crucial. In this way it supervises the administration of law by the lower courts on an ad hoc basis. At the other end of the spectrum, such as in New York, appeals to the states highest court are as of right in a great many cas

16、es provided for by statute. The primary function of the highest court in New York appears to be to assure that cases are correctly decided. It is necessary to check carefully the statutes of the system in which you are appearing to determine the specific rules regarding review by those appellate cou

17、rts.各地的三級體制在最高法院所扮演的角色上有所不同。各州所采用的不同做法反映了關于最高法院應當發(fā)揮什么作用的不同觀念。比如，在加利福尼亞，只有被判死刑的刑事案件才有權上訴到州最高法院。同樣，在聯(lián)邦法院中，除了在一些非常有限的情況下，向最高法院上訴屬于其根據調案調卷令進行自由裁量的事項。該法院自行決定哪些是最主要的問題而值得其關注，從而會拒絕審查它認為會產生不重要的問題的裁決。它以這種方式對下級法院的司法行為進行個案監(jiān)督。在這個問題的另外一個方面（or相反），如在紐約，成文法規(guī)定大量的案件都存在向州最高法院的上訴權。紐約上訴法院的主要作用就是確保案件得以正確裁決。在您要確定這些上訴法院關于審

18、查的特定規(guī)則的時候，有必要仔細察看該系統(tǒng)的相關立法。Part Two： Judges 第二部分 法官Fewer than one in twenty of those admitted to practice law is a federal, state, county, or municipal court judge. Except for some inferior courts, judges are generally required to be admitted to practice but do not practice while on the bench. There

19、is so little uniformity that it is difficult to generalize further than to point out three salient characteristics that relate to the ranks from which judges are drawn, to the method of their selection, and to their tenure. 那些獲準法律執(zhí)業(yè)的人當中只有不到二十分之一是聯(lián)邦、州、縣、或市的法院的法官。除了一些下級法院之外，法官一般被要求具備執(zhí)業(yè)律師資格，但是他們在擔任法官期間

20、不得執(zhí)業(yè)。由于一致性太少，因此除了指出關于法官產生的等級（or階層）、選任方法及其任期的三個明顯特點之外，很難再作進一步的概括。Judges are drawn from the practicing bar and less frequently from government service or the teaching profession. There is in the United States no career judiciary like that found in many other countries and there is no prescribed route

21、for the young law graduate who aspires to be a judge, no apprenticeship that must be served, no service that must be entered. The outstanding young law graduates who act for a year or two as law clerks to the most distinguished judges of the federal and state courts have only the reward of the exper

22、ience to take with them into practice and not the promise of a judicial career. While it is not uncommon for a vacancy on a higher court to be filled by a judge from a lower court, even this cannot be said to be the rule. The legal profession is not entirely unaware of the advantages of a career jud

23、iciary, but it is generally thought that they are outweighed by the experience and independence which American lawyers bring to the bench. Many of the outstanding judges of the countrys highest courts have had no prior judicial experience. Criticism has centered instead on the prevalent method of se

24、lection of judges. 法官是從執(zhí)業(yè)律師中選任出來的，很少從政府服務機構或者教師行業(yè)選任。在美國不像許多其他國家一樣有職業(yè)法官，而且對于希望成為法官的年輕的法學院畢業(yè)生來說沒有指定的路線可以走，不需要要學徒，也沒有必須（先行）進入服務機構。年輕的法學院優(yōu)秀畢業(yè)生作為聯(lián)邦或者州法院最為著名的法官的法律助理工作一、兩年，他們所獲得的回報是他們帶到職業(yè)中去的經驗，而不是從事法官職業(yè)的保證。不過高一級法院的法官的空缺被下一級法院的法官來填補并不是很罕見的，盡管這還不能說是一種規(guī)則。法律職業(yè)并不是完全沒有意識到職業(yè)法官的優(yōu)勢，但是人們一般都認為這些優(yōu)勢遠遠不及美國律師帶給法院的經驗和獨立性

25、更為重要。這個國家最高法院的許多優(yōu)秀法官都沒有事先的的司法經驗。批評意見反而集中在現(xiàn)行的法官選任辦法上。 State court judges are usually elected, commonly by popular vote, but occasionally by the legislature. Popular election has been the subject of much disapproval, including that of the American Bar Association, on the ground that the public lacks i

26、nterest in and information on candidates for judicial office and that therefore the outcome is too often controlled by leaders of political parties. The situation has been somewhat improved since many local bar associations have undertaken to evaluate the qualifications of candidates and to support

27、or oppose them on this basis.州法院法官通常通過選舉產生，通常由公眾進行投票，但偶爾由立法機關投票。公眾的選舉受到包括美國律師協(xié)會在內的很多人的反對， 其理由是公眾對法官職位的候選人沒有興趣缺乏了解，因此其結果通常受到政黨領袖的操縱。由于許多地方律師協(xié)會承諾對候選人的資格進行評估并據此決定支持與否，因此情況得到一定的改善。Since 1937, the American Bar Association has advocated the substitution of a system under which the governor appoints judges

28、 from a list submitted by a special nominating board and the judge then periodically stands unopposed for reelection by popular vote on the basis of his or her record. Such a system is now in effect, for at least some judges, in a substantial minority of states. In a small group of states, judges ar

29、e appointed by the governor subject to legislative confirmation.自從 1937年以來，美國律師協(xié)會提出了一種替代制度，根據該制度，州長從一個特別提名委員會提交的名單來任命法官，而法官隨后要定期參加沒有競爭對手由公眾投票選舉的續(xù)任，選舉的依據是其工作表現(xiàn)。這一制度目前正在極少數州至少針對一些法官得以實施。在一小部分州里，在立法機關批準的前提下，法官由州長任命。This is also the method of selection of federal judges, who are appointed by the Preside

30、nt subject to confirmation by the Senate. Even under the appointive system the selection of judges is not immune from political influence and appointees are usually of the Presidents or governors own party. But names of candidates for the federal judiciary are submitted to a committee of the America

31、n Bar Association and appointment is usually made only with its approval. The office of chief judge or chief justice is usually filled in the same manner as other judicial offices, although in some states it is filled from among the members of the court by rotation, by seniority of service, or by vo

32、te of the judges. The Chief Justice of the United States is appointed by the President, subject to Senate confirmation. 在參議院批準的前提下由總統(tǒng)任命聯(lián)邦法官也是一種選任方法。即使按照任命制度，法官的選任也難免受到政治的影響，因而被任命者通常屬于總統(tǒng)或州長的黨派。但是聯(lián)邦法官的候選人名單要提交給美國律師協(xié)會的一委員會，而且法官的任命只能經過其同意才能進行。首席法官的職位的安置通常與其它法官職位相同，盡管在一些州是以輪流的方式、工作的資歷或根據法官的選舉產生。美國的首席大法官在

33、參議院同意的前提下由總統(tǒng)任命。 The third characteristic is that judges commonly serve for a term of years rather than for life. For courts of general jurisdiction it is typically four, six, or eight years, and for appellate courts, six, eight, or ten years. Happily, even where selection is by popular election, it is customary to return to office for sitting judges whose service has been satisfactory. In a few state courts and in the federal courts the judges sit for life. Whether on the bench for a term of years or for life, a judge may be removed from office only for gross misconduct and only by