本文主要的目的在發現並討論評議制度，及其與實務間的差異與問題。對地方法院法官的深度訪談為本研究主要資料來源。由於法官評議經驗養成不一、蒞任不同風氣的法庭，及考績壓力等因素，影響評議制度在實際運作上的差異與制度上的缺陷。法官審判之評議制度乃為提升人民對司法的信賴，促使合議庭法官發揮民主審議效果，進一步達到民主可問責性。然而法袍下掩覆的評議過程，卻是人民無法檢視的。由於兩個附有不同意見書的判決出現，開啟本文對評議過程的了解。審判長、受命法官及陪席法官的分工，本為減輕負擔與更有效率的審判，但卻可能出現不閱卷的法官，或審判長左右判決，或受命法官一人獨斷的情況。本文亦發現評議簿功能不彰的問題。且當法官面對司法倫理或默示的俗慣，以及更直接現實的考績壓力，法官的獨立性在評議中很難不受到壓抑，甚至是自我壓抑。最後，這樣的評議結果與票決，雖然形式上是一人一票，但外在的壓力與內化的壓抑，以及法官間默示的俗慣，恐將產生不等值的結果。最後，我們發現不同意見的書寫與公開，可使合議實現實質合議與票決等值。

This purpose of this study to understand what the reality of judicial deliberation in district courts is in Taiwan. The data in this study mainly came from the interviews of six judges in districts courts. There are several important findings in this paper. First, Training Institute for Judges and Prosecutors did not teach judges how to do judicial deliberation and what the related regulations are. Second, some panels may not really do judicial deliberation. Third, in some cases section chief judges have more power than the other two judges because they have power to evaluate the other judges in the same section. Puisne judge may have much less power in the panels because of unequal power relationship and information asymmetry. Fourth, judicial stratification may affect judicial independence during judicial deliberation. Finally, almost all interviewees agreed that judges should have a right to issue dissents.