Abstract:There are two fundamental values that are regarded significant in constructing trial instance. One is the legitimacy of judgment, and the other is the finality of judgment. These two values are respected not only in continental countries, but also in Anglo-American countries. The identity of the two legal systems is that the first instance procedure is constructed to pursue the value of legitimacy, which is regarded as the basis of the value of finality. In doing so, the two legal systems entitle parties with series of rights, so that a judgment may obtain legitimacy not only from finding the truth, but also from protecting common values as well as procedural justice. There are also differences between the two systems. Firstly, the first instance judgment is the final judgment in Anglo-American countries to obtain finality, but parties are entitled with broad opportunities to appellate review, while in the continental system, the third instance judgment is final. Secondly, the appellate procedure of the Anglo-American system is with a supervising style, which means that the appellate court only review the form of the first instance trial process, and leave the fact finding completely to first instance judges. However, the appellate procedure of the continental countries is a hybrid of supervising and retrial. That is, the second instance procedure is usually a retrial procedure, and the third instance procedure is a supervising one. Following the model of continental countries, the second instance is the final judgment in China. Chinese first instance is to absorb dissatisfaction and obtain legitimacy, but due to the inadequacy of parties' rights, the legitimacy of a criminal judgment may come only from finding the truth, but not from protecting human rights and other important values. More over, the second instance does not function well in pursuing the value of legitimacy either. Consequently, even though the value of finality is emphasized on, it is a mansion based on unstable bases. In practice, although the finality of a criminal judgment is no longer a problem, the legitimacy problem is still salient. Consequently, to improve China's criminal trial instance system, we should pay more attention to the legitimacy of the first instance, and make the effective judgments truly final.

Limitations of Discretion in Civil Retrial Procedure

A Comparative Study of the Application of the Doctrine of Prosecuting Discretion in Japan,Germany and China

On "Refusal to Apply Rules" in Administrative Litigation:Based on the Analysis of No.5 Guiding Case Published by the Supreme People's Court

The Boundary of “Collecting Mistakes Whenever Discovered”

On Administrative Litigation's Performing Legal Duty Judgment

Legal Principles and Problems of the Concept of Restricted Discretion

On Constraints and Route-Construction of Administrative Discretion Standard-Making

Judicial Review of the Balance Between Crime and Punishment

Judge's Strategy of Settling Lawsuits

On the Retrials Presented by the Public Right in Civil Actions

THE ROLE OF DISCRETION IN SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES

Dislocation and Rectification: Reflection on System of Adjudicatory Supervision

Reflection on the System of Remanding Judgment in Civil Procedure

Procedure Discretion under Service Idea and its Regulation…

On Self-regulation of Administrative Discretion

Reconsideration of "Ma Xi-wu-Styled Trial"

Rethinking "Retrial Litigation":From the Perspective of Solving the Problem of "Difficulty of Complaints"

Constructivism of Civil Procedure with Argumentation on Proceedings and Trials: And Advice on Revision and Promotion of Civil Procedural Law

Construction and Reflection of Chinese Criminal Trial Instance System

Discretion with Common Law Remedies

Regulating judicial discretion on administrative penalty under clean government building