La Experiencia Estadounidense al Reformar las Instituciones de su Justicia Civil (The American Experience in Reforming its Civil Justice Institutions)
Year: 2018
Type: preprint
Abstract: Spanish Abstract: La experiencia de Estados Unidos con respecto a la reforma procesal presenta un contraste con ei desarrollo que esta ha tenido en otros paises de America. En gran parte, esto es asi porque se trata de un pais de comnwn law, que deriva sus tradiciones procesales del linaje anglo-americano. Pero tambien las diferencias se deben a la participacion del ciudadano norteamericano, de una manera que es desconocida hasta en el Reino Unido, que es nuestra «madre» patria.
Estas caracteristicas distintivas han emergido o desarrollado con el paso del tiempo y fueron inevitables. Demasiados abogados norteamericanos parecen considerar esas transformaciones como si fueran heredadas de Dios, pero el conocimiento de su genesis (y de la realidad procesal norteamericana) demuestra lo contrario. Fueron hechas por el hombre (y despues tambien por la mujer) y aun siguen evolucionando. Parece util enumerar algunas de estas caracteristicas: 1) juicio por jurado; 2) estandares menos estrictos para las alegaciones; 3) amplitud en la produccion de pruebas sobre los hechos; 4) grandes indemnizaciones por danos morales; 5) bases relativamente amplias para la indemnizacion por danos punitivos; y 6) discrecion muy amplia conferida a los tribunales de primer grado sujetas a un limitado control efectivo por parte de los tribunales mas altos. Ademas, en los Estados Unidos la revision judicial de la legislacion por violar la Constitucion es muy poderosa.
Hablo como alguien que ha estado intimamente involucrado en esta evolucion durante casi veinte anos, ya que fui designado en 1996, y sigo siendo, corresponsal asociado del Comite de Asesores sobre las Reglas Civiles de la Conferencia Judicial de los Estados Unidos (Comite). Como se explicara a continuacion, este organo que desarrolla y propone enmiendas a las Reglas Federales del Derecho Procesal Civil de los Estados Unidos, entraron en vigencia en 1938 y se han convertido en un ejemplo para gran parte de las regulaciones procesales estatales.
English Abstract: The US experience with procedure reform provides a contrast with the experience of other countries in the Americas. In large part, that is because it is a common law country, but it has developed a distinctive procedure even among common law countries. A key distinction is the extent to which US procedure is plaintiff-friendly compared with that employed in the rest of the world. Many rules -- including jury trial, relaxed pleading requirements, broad discovery, broad access to compensatory damages for pain and suffering, and sometimes to punitive damages, the absence of a loser pays rule for attorney fees, and limited intervention by appellate courts -- afford plaintiffs more access to civil litigation, particularly since contingency fees are also permitted.
This paper introduces US procedural development for a non-US lawyer or academic. American lawyers often seem to assume that these distinctive features of US civil litigation were inevitable, but they were not. The paper therefore traces the origin and evolution of US procedure through the Field Code of the 19th century and the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the 20th century. During this time, US procedure was typified by what might be called the ethos. Turning to the post-1970 period, the paper examines the malaise in liberal procedure that emerged during that time in America, and the consequent retreat from the broadest pro-plaintiff standards. Constraints have come from the federal rulemakers and also from Congress. The Supreme Court has also made a number of decisions that curtail prior latitude for plaintiffs.
Altogether, these developments could be summed up as responding to a view that court access is a zero-sum game -- the more access there is for plaintiffs, the less fair it is for defendants. That theme has been recurrent in lobbying for procedural change, but most of the changes have been less than revolutionary. In conclusion, the future course of reform is difficult to forecast. But past experience suggests that the federal rulemakers are less likely to produce dramatic changes than Congress or the Supreme Court.
Source: SSRN Electronic Journal
Author: Richard L. Marcus
Institution: University of California Hastings College of the Law
Language: Spanish
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W3192816316