№3(124)
Non-traditional evidence in Russian and American constitutional litigation

Abstract 
This article examines the use of non-traditional evidence by Russian and American constitutional review organs while deciding constitutional cases. With references to case law of the Russian Constitutional Court and the United States Supreme Court, the author demonstrates that unlike traditional forms of adjudication, judicial review of legislation requires the assessment of legislative process materials, judicial opinions that differently interpret the same legal norms, foreign law and court decisions, and statistical evidence. Using methods of comparative law, the author determines the legal importance of facts that judges and parties in constitutional litigation can extract from the above-mentioned non-traditional evidence. While the evidentiary value of the materials of the legislative process depends largely on the quality of factual justification given by lawmakers for its normative decisions, the legislative record is of great value even where it contains no reference to facts. For instance, if the legislator is under constitutional duty to give reasons for legislative acts, the legislative process materials become the only admissible evidence of constitutionality that the legislator can adduce in order to support its arguments. Another important conclusion is that the centralized model of constitutional review considers the uniformity of judicial practice as a self-sufficient criterion of constitutionality, whereas the decentralized model of constitutional review does not, because American courts decide constitutional issues in the course of adjudicating specific cases and controversies. The general finding of the article is that by resorting to the legislative record, the courts can exercise both procedural and substantive judicial review of legislation, whereas judgments containing different interpretations of the challenged legal norm, foreign law and court decisions, and statistical data are able to create only substantive grounds for constitutional review.

About the author 
Aldar Chirninov – Ph.D. Student, Ural State Law University, Yekaterinburg, Russia.

Citation 
Chirninov A. (2018) Netipichnye dokazatel’stva v konstitutsionnom sudebnom protsesse Rossii i SShA [Non-traditional evidence in Russian and American constitutional litigation]. Sravnitel’noekonstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.27, no.3, pp.47–72. (In Russian).

References

Belykh M.L. (2013) Nekotorye voprosy ispol’zovaniya sravnitel’no-pravovogo metoda v deyatel’nosti organov konstitutsionnogo sudebnogo kontrolya [Some issues on the use of methods of comparative law in practice of constitutional review organs]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.4, pp.72–77. (In Russian).

Blokhin P.D., Kryazhkova O.N. (2015) Kak zashchitit’ svoi prava v Konstitutsionnom Sude: Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo po obrashcheniyu s zhaloboy v Konstitutsionnyy Sud Rossii [How to defend one’s rights before the Constitutional Court: A practical handbook on filing a complaint in the Constitutional Court of Russia], 2nd ed., Moscow: Institut prava i publichnoy politiki. (In Russian).

Borgmann C.E. (2009) Rethinking Judicial Deference to Legislative Fact-Finding. Indiana Law Journal, vol.84, no.1, pp.1–56.

Bryant A.C. (2011) Foreign Law as Legislative Fact in Constitutional Cases. Brigham Young University Law Review, vol.2011, no.4, pp.1005–1040.

Bryant A.C., Simeone T.J. (2000) Remanding to Congress: The Supreme Court’s New on the Record Constitutional Review of Federal Statutes. Cornell Law Review, vol.86, no.2, pp.328–396.

Calabresi S., Zimdahl S.D. (2005) The Supreme Court and Foreign Sources of Law: Two. Hundred Years of Practice and The Juvenile Death Penalty Decision. William & Mary Law Review, vol.47, no.3, pp.743–909.

Caldeira G.A. (1987) Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan. The American Political Science Review, vol.81, no.4, pp.1139–1153.

Chemerinsky E. (2011) Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, 4th ed., New York: Wolters Kluwer.

Chirninov A. (2017) Nel’zya obyat’ neobyatnoe: predmet dokazyvaniya v konstitutsionnom sudebnom protsesse (na primere Rossii i SShA) [Embracing the unembraceable: facts at issue in Russian and American constitutional litigation]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no.3, pp.91–112. (In Russian).

Chirninov A. (2018) Otsenka dokazatel’stv v konstitutsionnom sudebnom protsesse Rossii i SSHA: svobodnaya otsenka dokazatel’stv ili standarty dokazyvaniya? [Assessment of evidence in constitutional litigation: The principle of free evaluation of evidence or standards of proof?]. Pravo i politika, no.2, pp.1–8. (In Russian).

Clermont K.M. (2013) Standards of Decision in Law: Psychological and Logical Bases for the Standard of Proof, Here and Abroad, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Engel’man I.E. (1912) Kurs russkogo grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva [A course on Russian civil procedure], 2nd ed., Yur’ev: Tipografiya K.Mattisena. (In Russian).

Enos R.D., Fowler A., Havasy C.S. (2017) The Negative Effect Fallacy: A Case Study of Incorrect Statistical Reasoning by Federal Courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, vol.14, no.3, pp.618–647.

Fallon R.H. (2000) As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third-Party Standing. Harvard Law Review, vol.113, no.6, pp.1321–1370.

Fienberg S.E. (ed.) (1989) Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Fienberg S.E., Straf M.L. (1982) Statistical Assessments as Evidence. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), vol.145, no.4, pp.410–421.

Finkelstein M.O., Levin B. (2015) Statistics for Lawyers, New York: Springer.

Fowkes J., Egidy S., Rose-Ackerman S. (2015) Due Process of Lawmaking: The United States, South Africa, Germany, and the European Union, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gadzhiev G.A. (ed.) (2012) Kommentariy k Federal’nomu konstitutsionnomu zakonu “O Konstitutsionnom Sude Rossiyskoy Federatsii” [Commentary to the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”], Moscow: Norma; INFRA-M. (In Russian).

Gadzhiev G.A., Kovalenko K.A. (2012) Printsip pravovoy opredelennosti v konstitutsionnom pravosudii [The principle of legal certainty in constitutional justice]. ZHurnal konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya. no.5, pp.12–19. (In Russian).

Gallagher M. (2016) The Legislature’s Relationship with the Courts: The Role of Judicial Review in Legislating Wisconsin. Legislating in Wisconsin, no.4, pp.1–6.

Gastwirth J.L. (ed.) (2000) Statistical Science in the Courtroom, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Gromyko G.L. (ed.) (2005) Teoriya statistiki: Uchebnik [The theory of statistics: Textbook], 2nd ed., Moscow: Norma; INFRA-M. (In Russian).

Holmes O.W. (1897) The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review, vol.10, no.8, pp.457–478.

Hotsanov D.A. (2012) Ustanovlenie soderzhaniya inostrannykh pravovykh norm v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave [Establishing the content of foreign legal norms in private international law], Moscow: Infotropik Media, 2012. (In Russian).

McGinnis J.O., Mulaney C.W. (2008) Judging Facts Like Law. Constitutional Commentary, vol.25, no.1, pp.69–130.

Meriwether Cordray M., Cordray R. (2008) Strategy in Supreme Court Case Selection: The Relationship Between Certiorari and the Merits. Ohio State Law Journal, vol.69, no.1, pp.1–51.

Meßerschmidt K., Oliver-Lalana D. (eds.) (2016) Rational Lawmaking under Review: Legisprudence According to the German Federal Constitutional Court, Switzerland: Springer.

O’Connor S.D. (1984) Our Judicial Federalism. Case Western Reserve Law Review, vol.35, no.1, pp.1–12.

Ponomarenko M. (2014) Changed Circumstances and Judicial Review. New York University Law Review, vol.89, no.4, pp.1419–1453.

Posner R.A. (2005) Foreword: A Political Court. Harvard Law Review, vol.119, no.1, pp.32–102.

Reshetnikova I.V. (1997) Dokazatel’stvennoe pravo Anglii i SShA [The law of evidence of England and the USA], Ekaterinburg: Izdatel’stvo UrGYuA. (In Russian).

Rotem Y. (2014) Foreign Law as a Distinctive Fact: To Whom Should the Burden of Proof Be Assigned? Chicago Journal of International Law, vol.14, no.2, pp.625–651.

Shinar А., Su А. (2013) Religious Law as Foreign Law in Constitutional Interpretation. International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol.11, no.1, pp.74–100.

Siniša R. (2016) Constitutional Relevance of Foreign Court Decisions. The American Journal of Comparative Law, vol.64, no.4, pp.815–840.

Solove D.J. (1999) The Darkest Domain: Deference, Judicial Review, and the Bill of Rights. Iowa Law Review, vol.84, no.5, pp.941–1023.

Stephanopoulos N.O., McGhee E.M. (2015) Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap. The University of Chicago Law Review, vol.82, no.2, pp.831–900.

Sward E.E. (1989) Values, Ideology, and the Evolution of the Adversary system. Indiana Law Journal, vol.64, no.2, pp.301–355.

Troitskaya A.A., Khramova T.M. (2016) Ispol’zovanie organami konstitutsionnogo kontrolya zarubezhnogo opyta [The use of foreign legal experience by constitutional review bodies]. Gosudarstvo i pravo, no.8, pp.5–22. (In Russian).

Issue articles