The responsibility of judges to assure due process: Tension among neutrality, rights protection, and role

SES-1456772法官确保正当程序的责任：中立、权利保护和角色之间的紧张关系美国最高法院对特纳诉罗杰斯案(2011)的裁决促使人们考虑法官在一方或多方没有律师代表的案件中的作用。在特纳，最高法院认为，儿童抚养费案件的法官有特殊责任确保司法程序对没有律师代表的父母公平。特纳引发了关于法官如何履行职责，确保司法程序对没有律师的当事人公平，同时履行对所有当事人中立适用法律的义务的辩论。这个问题有相当大的普遍性。在全国各地的社区，州法院被数百万人淹没，他们负担不起私人律师的费用，也无法获得民事法律援助吧提供的有限免费服务。因此，社区正在权衡一系列选择，以帮助确保没有律师的人的案件得到公平解决。许多州修改了各自的司法行为守则，或为法官制定了其他指导方针，规定法官可以采取措施，确保司法程序对无律师代表的当事人公平，而不违反法官对所有当事人中立适用法律的义务。然而，这些变化将如何在实地实现是一个复杂的问题。该项目开展的两项研究将审查法官是否以及如何履行其职责，以确保司法程序对无律师代表的当事方公平，同时履行其职责，确保法律中立地适用于所有当事方。这一研究成果有望推动程序正义理论的发展，并为司法教育实践和政策提供参考。该项目还具有更广泛的教育影响，包括对本科生、法律系学生和博士后研究员的培训和指导。这两项研究都将在纽约市住房法院进行，具体而言，重点是住房法院法官在审查拟议和解条款的公平性方面的作用，在这些案件中，房东提起诉讼，要求向无律师代表的租户追回公寓，理由是租户被指控拖欠租金。第一项研究该试验将对40名法官进行程序公正方面的培训，并对法官(以及案件中的诉讼当事人和律师)进行培训前的5次审判和培训后的5次审判进行调查(从而可以对培训效果进行受控测试)。将观察400个目标案例，并对参与者的行为和结果进行系统编码(考虑到上述因变量)。一个由训练有素的法律系学生组成的团队将对案件卷宗进行编码。第二项研究--一项对照实验--问的是，对所有当事方进行关于法官在维护无律师代表当事人程序公平方面的作用的教育，是否可以最大限度地减少当事人对法官偏袒无律师代表当事人的可能看法。实验包括3(党派代表平衡：平衡，双方代表与不平衡，租户代表与不平衡，房东代表)×2(法官根据培训聘用与被动)×2(党：租户与房东)×2(结果：支持房东与支持租户)x 2(程序概述：出席与缺席)。这两项研究预计将揭示其他根本问题，包括：(A)无律师代表的当事方对其应得待遇的看法是否影响他们对司法程序是否公平的看法，以及(B)程序公平对当事人和对法官一样重要吗？

AbstractSES-1456772The Responsibility of Judges to Assure Due Process: Tension Among Neutrality, Rights Protection, and RolePI - Larry HeuerCo-PI - Steven PenrodThe decision of the US Supreme Court in Turner v. Rogers (2011) has prompted consideration of the role of judges in cases in which a party, or parties, are not represented by counsel. In Turner, the Court held that judges in child support cases have a specific duty to ensure that judicial processes are fair to parents who are not represented by counsel. Turner has given rise to debate about how judges can fulfill the duty to ensure that judicial processes are fair to parties without counsel while at the same fulfilling the duty to apply the law neutrally to all parties. The question has considerable currency. In communities across the country, state courts are inundated by millions of people unable to afford private counsel and unable to secure the limited free services made available by the civil legal aid bar. Communities are therefore weighing a range of options to helping to assure the fair resolution of cases for people without lawyers. Many states have modified their respective codes of judicial conduct, or have developed other guidance for judges, to provide that a judge may take steps to ensure that judicial processes are fair to unrepresented parties without violating the judge's duty to apply the law neutrally to all parties. Yet, how these changes will be realized on the ground is a complicated matter. Two studies carried out by this project will examine different aspects of the question of whether and how judges can fulfill their duty to ensure that judicial processes are fair to unrepresented parties while at the same fulfilling their duty to ensure that the law is applied neutrally to all parties. The research findings are expected to advance theory on procedural justice and inform practice and policy on judicial education. The project also has a broader educational impact, including training and mentoring of undergraduate students, law students, and a postdoctoral fellow. Both studies will be carried out in the New York City Housing Court, specifically focusing on the role of Housing Court Judges in reviewing the fairness of proposed stipulations of settlement in cases in which a landlord has brought an action seeking recovery of an apartment from an unrepresented tenant based on the tenant's alleged nonpayment of rent. The first study--a courtroom experiment--asks whether training judges to preserve procedural fairness in cases involving unrepresented parties can a) increase judicial engagement with the unrepresented party, b) help the unrepresented party understand the information needed in the case, and/or c) increase the unrepresented party's perception of procedural fairness and of the legitimacy of the court. The experiment will train 40 judges in procedural fairness and survey the judges (and litigants and attorneys in their cases) on five trials prior to the judges' training and five trials after training (thus permitting controlled testing of training effects). Four hundred target cases will be observed and the behaviors of the participants and outcomes systematically coded (with the above dependent variables in mind). A team of trained law students will code the case files. The second study--a controlled experiment--asks whether educating all the parties about the role of judges in preserving procedural fairness for unrepresented parties can minimize the parties' possible perception of judges as biased in favor of unrepresented parties. The experiment involves a 3 (Party Representation Balance: Balanced, Neither party represented vs. Imbalanced, tenant represented vs. Imbalanced, landlord represented) x 2 (Judge is engaged as per training vs. passive) x 2 (Party: Tenant vs. Landlord) x 2 (Outcome: Favors landlord vs. favors tenant) x 2 (Procedure Overview: Present vs. absent). The two studies are expected to cast light on additional underlying questions, including the following: a) do unrepresented parties' views on the treatment they deserve have a bearing on their perceptions of whether the judicial processes are fair, and b) is procedural fairness as important to the parties as it is to the judges?