Who Messed Up the Judgment? The Judges Act Combat Manual: Judgment Search Edition

Poor judgment quality has always been a source of public grievance against the judiciary. On May 30, 2012, the Judicial Yuan for the first time severely penalized a judge by dismissing them from office on the grounds of sloppy copy-pasting in a judgment. The Judicial Yuan's determination to improve judgment quality is commendable and deserves support. This article introduces six essential judgment search techniques. When utilized effectively, they not only safeguard personal rights when errors occur in judgments, but also effectively monitor judgment quality and assist judicial authorities in weeding out incompetent judges.

Search Technique (1): Design Keywords and Full-Text Search Terms

For searching judgments, it is recommended to use the "Judgment Search" and "Simple Case Search" features on the Judicial Yuan's Law and Regulations Retrievals System, which are free, convenient, and effective. Among them, the most useful function is the "Full-Text Search Term." By simply entering keywords, you can find judgments containing the same keywords. Taking Judge A's case as an example, the parties only needed to set the content in the judgment unrelated to the case as keywords and enter them into the "Full-Text Search Term" for a query. If they found a judgment with completely identical keywords and confirmed the source of the copy-paste, they could use it to report Judge A for cheating.

The following are a few suggested methods for setting keywords to achieve effective queries:

1. Judgment Case Numbers and Cited Legal Provisions
   Relevant judgment case numbers appearing in the judgment, such as the indictment case number, the first-instance judgment case number, the Supreme Court precedent and judgment case numbers, as well as the article numbers of cited legal provisions, can all be used as keywords for searching.
2. Crime Scene Address, Time, and Modus Operandi
   Addresses, times of the incident, and modi operandi related to the case appearing in the judgment are very suitable for use as search keywords.
3. Names of Involved Persons, Companies, and Matters
   Names appearing in the judgment, such as plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, police officers, expert witnesses, company names, and names of organizations and institutions, can all be set as keywords.

Search Technique (2): Identify Erroneous Judgments and Health-Check Judicial Quality

When an error occurs in a judgment, the court remedies it through a "Ruling on Correction" (裁定更正). Therefore, by simply performing a full-text search using "Ruling on Correction" as the keyword, you can view all sorts of bizarre erroneous judgments. For friends using the Judicial Yuan's Law and Regulations Retrievals System for the first time, it is also recommended to practice search skills using this keyword while health-checking judicial quality. The steps are as follows:

1. [Court Name] Select "Taiwan High Court" (other courts may be selected arbitrarily)
2. [Judgment Category] Select "Criminal" (other categories may be selected arbitrarily)
3. [Full-Text Search Term] Enter "Ruling on Correction"
4. Click [Search]

At this point, thousands of judgments will be retrieved. Please click on any [Judgment Number]. Judgment errors and correction contents will be recorded in the "Main Text" (主文) of the judgment. Common contents include:

1. Errors in recording the names and ages of the parties.
2. Errors in citing legal provisions.
3. Errors in recording the sentence or monetary amount in the main text.

It is worth noting that there have actually been cases where members of the public received a copy-pasted, erroneous judgment, and subsequently received a correct version of the judgment. However, the judge never issued a ruling on correction; instead, they directly swapped the physical judgment paper inside the case file and directly modified the content of the judgment on the Judicial Yuan's Law and Regulations Retrievals System website (102nd Year Ping-Tzu Resolution No. 2).

Errors in judgments are mostly unintentional, but some judicial personnel commit them repeatedly or privately swap judgments to conceal their mistakes. Members of the public who discover unfit personnel are welcome to file reports.

Search Technique (3): Query Similar Cases Using Judgment Causes

A complainant once called in, very angry, saying they had encountered a dinosaur prosecutor: their house accidentally caught fire while worshipping ancestors, and since they were clearly the victim, how could the prosecutor indict them for the crime of public endangerment. To help the complainant understand the core of the issue, it is recommended to search judgments using the "Judgment Cause" (判決案由). The method is as follows:

1. [Court Name] Select "Kaohsiung District Court" (any competent court of jurisdiction may be selected)
2. [Judgment Category] Select "Criminal"
3. Enter "Public Endangerment" in [Judgment Cause]
4. Enter "Worship Ancestors" in [Full-Text Search Term]
5. Click [Search]

After reading the judgment, this citizen sheepishly said they had no idea there were so many cases indicted for fires caused by ancestral worship, and now they understood that the crime of public endangerment penalizes such behavior. This example shows that by querying judgment causes, one can find similar cases in legal practice and understand the typical handling by courts in litigation cases involving oneself. The following examples are provided for readers to practice search skills: (Please first select the competent court of jurisdiction for your location)

1. [Judgment Category] "Criminal" + [Judgment Cause] "Negligent Injury" + [Full-Text Search Term] "Traffic Accident"
2. [Judgment Category] "Civil" + [Judgment Cause] "Debt Restructuring Event" + [Full-Text Search Term] "Mediation Unsuccessful"
3. [Judgment Category] "Administrative" + [Judgment Cause] "Business Tax" + [Full-Text Search Term] "Failure to Issue Receipt"

Search Technique (4): Make Good Use of Logical Operators to Unleash Full Search Firepower

Beginners searching for judgments are often troubled by finding too many irrelevant judgments, requiring a lot of time to find truly reference-worthy ones. The solution is actually hidden in the "Help Description" next to the full-text search term field. As it turns out, the Judicial Yuan Judgment Search System supports four sets of logical operators: "+", "-", "&", and "( )" (please go online to click on the official explanation). Making good use of these four sets of logical operators allows you to precisely find reference-worthy judgments.

The following demonstrates the usage techniques of the most commonly used logical operators, "&" (AND) and "-" (NOT):

1. Search for Acquittal Judgments
   Judgments obtained from general searches do not distinguish between guilty and not-guilty cases. If you are a defendant and only want to check not-guilty cases to reference successful experiences of others, taking traffic accident cases as an example, you can search like this in the district court: [Judgment Category] "Criminal" + [Judgment Cause] "Negligent Injury" + [Judgment Main Text] "Acquittal" + [Full-Text Search Term] "Traffic Accident"
   
   If it is a case appealed to the high court, searching this way will be more precise:
   [Judgment Category] "Criminal" + [Judgment Cause] "Negligent Injury" + [Judgment Main Text] "Acquittal&Original Judgment Quashed" + [Full-Text Search Term] "Traffic Accident"
    
   
2. Search for Specific Opposing Parties
   Taking debt restructuring for credit card debtors as an example, if you want to understand the litigation strategy of a major creditor bank and find examples of successfully entering debt restructuring procedures, you can search like this: (Please enter the bank name; Citibank is used merely as an example) [Judgment Category] "Civil" + [Judgment Cause] "Debt Restructuring Event" + [Full-Text Search Term] "Mediation Unsuccessful&Citibank-Application Dismissed"
   
   
3. Search for Specific Legal Application Circumstances
   The Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan rendered Interpretation No. 685, declaring Article 44 of the Tax Collection Act unconstitutional. For companies and businesses wanting to understand how this interpretation is applied in courts, they can search like this: (Please select an administrative court with jurisdiction over your location) [Judgment Category] "Administrative" + [Judgment Cause] "Business Tax" + [Full-Text Search Term] "Failure to Issue Receipt&Interpretation No. 685"
   
   

If you still cannot find the judgment you are looking for no matter what, it is recommended to write to the Judicial Yuan Mailbox to inquire, and you will usually receive a reply very quickly. If there is an omission in publication, the Judicial Yuan will promptly supplement it.

Search Technique (5): Compare Judgment Text to Identify Where the Error Lies

Judge A's case drew public attention to the fact that judges also copy and paste from the internet when drafting judgments. In other words, most of the content in the judgments we receive is not original text, but rather a compilation of the prosecutor's indictment, the briefs of both lawyers, and the judge's mental reasoning. The general division of labor is as follows:

Judgment Section	Responsible Party
Case number, names of parties, address... etc.	Judge
Main Text	Judge
Summary of Prosecution	Prosecutor, Plaintiff (Lawyer)
Summary of Defense	Defendant (Lawyer)
Facts and Reasons for Judgment	Judge
Instructional Recording at the End of Text, Appendices, and Attachments	Court Clerk

If an error occurs in a judgment, by simply identifying which section the error occurred in, one can determine who messed up the judgment. Taking Judge A's case as an example, the error was in the reasons for the judgment, which is the judge's responsibility; therefore, it was the judge's fault. Another example is given below where the error was in the instructional notes at the end of the text, which is the responsibility of the court clerk; therefore, it was the court clerk's fault. By extension, one can know whom to hold accountable. When a judgment error occurs, if the problem lies with the judge, a "ruling" is used for correction; if it lies with the court clerk, a "disposition" is used for correction. The public can also distinguish whether the error belongs to the judge or the court clerk by whether they receive a ruling or a disposition.

As for how the public can confirm whether the judgment they received contains a wrongly pasted template, they can also use the judgment search system to inspect it. Taking Brother Ta-Ming's case as an example, by searching for judgments that similarly dismissed re-appeals against changing guardianship and comparing the instructional notes at the end of the text, if the judgment received has identical notes to other judgments, it is correct; if there are differences, the wrong template may have been pasted. It is recommended to promptly seek assistance from legal professionals to resolve the sequelae caused by the judgment error.

Search Technique (6): Query Historical Judgments of Judges, Prosecutors, and Counsel for Both Sides

Members of the public frequently call to inquire: Is a certain judge fair in trying cases? Is a certain prosecutor serious during trial? Is a certain lawyer professional? These are questions without standard answers and cannot be answered concretely. However, we are very willing to introduce a method for researching issues: utilizing the judgment search system to query the historical judgments of judges, prosecutors, and counsel for both sides.

Querying historical judgments is just like professional baseball or basketball games: although the game's outcome cannot be predicted, one can make a reasonable assessment of the strengths of both sides based on the past performance of players on the field, such as batting average, shooting percentage, defense rate, assist rate, etc. This method holds significant reference value; while it may not necessarily be accurate, it is absolutely authentic. The legal requirement that judgments must be transparent and public is precisely to demand that judicial personnel accept public supervision to ensure fairness and impartiality. Therefore, it is recommended that before and during litigation, members of the public input the names of the presiding judge, prosecutor, and lawyers for both sides into the judgment search system respectively, observing their actual performance of duties from the judgments of cases they participated in the past. The recommended key areas of observation are listed below:

1. Judges
   From historical judgments with similar facts, observe what kind of judgment results the judge typically renders, the severity of sentencing, or the height of monetary amounts; one can also observe under what circumstances the judge will agree to applications to summon witnesses, commission expert evaluations, or conduct on-site inspections. In cases with similar legal disputes, the legal provisions, precedents, judgments, or academic opinions that the judge habitually cites are all worth observing.
2. Prosecutors
   From historical judgments with similar facts, observe the types of evidence presented by the prosecutor, evidence-gathering methods, and the presentation model of criminal facts. In cases with similar legal disputes, observe the legal basis the prosecutor habitually cites, as well as legal opinions on the evidentiary capability of witness testimony, physical evidence, expert evaluation, and other forms of evidence. It should be incidentally explained that in practice, prosecutors are divided into investigative prosecutors (responsible for investigating crimes) and public prosecution prosecutors (responsible for presenting arguments at trial). However, because indictments are currently not published online, it is not easy to identify in judgments which part of the legal opinions belongs specifically to the investigative prosecutor and which part belongs specifically to the public prosecution prosecutor. Therefore, at most, one can currently roughly summarize the characteristics of a certain prosecutor's office.
3. Counsel for Both Sides
   From the historical judgments handled by lawyers, observe their areas of expertise in practice, legal argumentation skills, winning or defense rates in handled cases, and whether they have handled cases or clients with conflicts of interest with your own.

Conclusion: Make Good Use of Judgment Searches to Lift the Veil of Judicial Mystery

Complex litigation procedures and abstruse legal terminology give the public an impression of the judiciary as both professional and mysterious. In fact, in an internet-developed Taiwan, through free public judgment search websites, one can have a firsthand look at the work of judges, prosecutors, and lawyers, lifting the veil of judicial mystery and leaving incompetent personnel with nowhere to hide.

Finally, readers are reminded: never assume that knowing how to query judgments means you can handle a lawsuit by yourself. When going to court, please be sure to seek professional legal assistance to effectively safeguard your rights and interests.