論我國國民法官法法官對國民法官之法律說明及上訴審對於法律說明之審查──從美國陪審團法律指示之考察

Judges’ Legal Instructions to Citizen Judges and Appellate Court Review Standards of Legal Instructions: From An American Perspective to Review the Taiwanese System

我國已通過「國民法官法」之立法，對於適合國民法官審判之案件，組成國民法官法庭審判，由職業法官與國民法官共同審理、評議，決定有罪與否及量刑，望能夠建立人民信賴之司法。而建立人民信賴之司法，有賴正確認定事實及適用法律。對於國民法官言之，要達成上述目標，首應先正確且充足的認知法律及解釋，如有誤解或忽略法官指示，將可能形成恣意性或錯誤判決。然而，經檢討國民法官法「法律說明」制度規範不足之處，可分三點：(一)當事人參與不足之問題；(二)法律說明時機之規範欠缺彈性及規範不足之問題；(三)現有救濟制度不足之問題，導致現行法律說明制度不足以使國民法官對於案件之法律認知有完全正確之認識，因而可能無法形成正確裁判之風險。
本文自美國法制作為比較法基礎，深入探討美國法制法官對於陪審團之法律指示定義、類型、內涵、聯邦法制陪審團指示之規範、對錯誤陪審團指示之上訴審查，並從美國之上訴構造及審查基準論起，針對上訴審查採取之明顯錯誤法則、無害錯誤法則及當然發回錯誤，探討美國陪審團指示錯誤之上訴審查基準，藉此分析關於法律說明若有錯誤或疏漏之處，我國上訴審應採取之審查基準，並依據國民法官法撤銷發回重審。

Taiwan has promulgated the Citizen Judges Act, which establishes a new chapter for lay participation in specific criminal trials. The mixed tribunal, which will consist of both professional and lay judges, will adjudicate and deliberate criminal cases and sentencing, in hopes of establishing a judiciary that the people trust. However, achieving the goals of a trustworthy judiciary will depend on the correctness and justness of the decisions. For lay judges, the first step in reaching a just decision is to correctly know the law and its interpretations. In general, the professional judges will issue “legal instructions” to lay judges for applying the law. However, if professional judges misinterpret or misstate the law before or during the issuance of their instructions to the lay judges, the result may be an arbitrary and wrongful conviction.
In this article, we have analyzed three major defects with the Citizen Judges Act regarding to “legal instructions”. These are: a. the inability for prosecution and defense teams to sufficiently participate; b. Inflexibility and insufficiency regarding the timing of issuing legal instructions; c. the lack of remedial action by adversarial parties following the judges’ decision. Overall, these defects will increase the risk of not arriving at correct and just decisions. This article will be based on the “jury instructions” from the American jury system, with analysis of its definition; contents; classifications; and the norms in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in order to grasp and extract the essence of its system. Additionally, we will also explore appellate review of alleged wrongful jury instructions and the appellate review standard used to analyze wrongful jury instructions including harmless error review and plain error review, so that we may discuss the appellate review standards which could be used in our appellate court system. In Conclusion, we will propose amendments to our Citizen Judges Act regarding the legal instructions.