With regard to the general question described in the title, there’s actually a huge literature. Just for example, Richard Posner’s Economic Analysis of Law (and pretty much most of what he’s written), and Philip Hamburger’s *Law and Judicial Duty.”
For what it’s worth, in America at least, there is no “state without juries,” but there are bench trials, for example when a criminal defendant waives a jury. In that case one—and only one—judge acts as both the arbiter of law and the finder of fact.
You only get a panel of judges at the appellate level. This hypothetical suggests that the facts have been addressed by more than one “previous court.” But appellate courts essentially never review findings of fact, whether by juries or by judges of bench trials. Neither do they take new evidence.
With regard to the general question described in the title, there’s actually a huge literature. Just for example, Richard Posner’s Economic Analysis of Law (and pretty much most of what he’s written), and Philip Hamburger’s *Law and Judicial Duty.”
For what it’s worth, in America at least, there is no “state without juries,” but there are bench trials, for example when a criminal defendant waives a jury. In that case one—and only one—judge acts as both the arbiter of law and the finder of fact.
You only get a panel of judges at the appellate level. This hypothetical suggests that the facts have been addressed by more than one “previous court.” But appellate courts essentially never review findings of fact, whether by juries or by judges of bench trials. Neither do they take new evidence.