论瑕疵证据补正规则

中国2010年颁行的两部刑事证据规定,对"非法证据"与"瑕疵证据"作了明确区分,并针对"瑕疵证据"和部分"非法证据"确立了可补正的排除规则。所谓"瑕疵证据",大都是侦查人员在制作相关证据笔录时存在技术性缺陷的证据。无论是从侵害的法益、违反法律程序的严重程度来看,还是从所造成的消极后果来看,"瑕疵证据"与"非法证据"都具有显著的区别,这也构成了对此类证据予以补正的主要理由。司法解释确立了"瑕疵证据"的范围、补正程序、补正的标准以及补正不能的法律后果。但是,无论是对"瑕疵证据"的界定,还是对此类证据的补正,司法官员都可能存在误读和滥用自由裁量权的问题。因此,对于这一规则的运用,应保持审慎的态度。     

诉讼证据的现代解构

"证据"是证据法学研究的基石。厘清证据的界限,进行正本清源式的研究,对指导证据理论和实践意义重大。对时下证据法学界仍流行的两种证据观"客观事实说"和"经验事实说"进行了剖析,认为二者尽管从不同侧面揭示了证据的某种特性,但都不足以解释我国证据运用的实践,都存在着哲学依据、时空视域以及诉讼价值上无法克服的缺憾,证据概念的内涵急需澄清。在此基础上对证据进行理性界定,认为证据应是包含有证据信息并用于证明事实主张的根据。从功用角度对证据所作的这一定义,能够应对证据理论和实践上的危机和难题。     

Rethinking the Probative Value of Evidence: Base Rates,Intuitive Profiling,and the “Postdiction” of Behavior

It is argued that American courts may be routinely admitting evidence with little to no probative value and great potential for prejudicial impact. This may be particularly likely with regard to what is essentially intuitive profiling or stereotype related evidence, defined herein as evidence suggesting that the defendant (or other party), or his (her) behavior, fits intuitive profiles (or stereotypes) of the type of person likely to commit the crime or behavior in question. In other words, intuitive profiling evidence is admitted to postdict behavior. Formal empirically based profiling evidence (testimony regarding the fit of a defendant's characteristics or behaviors to formal or scientific profiles of the typical perpetrator of the crime in question for use to prove guilt is inadmissible in American courts. However, we suggest that everyday use of informal intuitive profiles underlies both judicial determinations of probative value diagnosticity, and thus admissibility, of evidence, and jurors' use of the evidence in determining guilt. Demonstrations of the use of base rate information to evaluate the probative value of such intuitive profiling evidence both as evidence of guilt and as evidence of innocence are provided. Demonstrations of both how to evaluate the actual probative value of evidence (when all necessary values are known), and the theoretical limit of its probative value (in circumstances where some values are not known) are provided. It is argued that such evaluations may provide the basis for (1) support of motions to either admit or to exclude evidence, (2) testimony to the jury to help them weigh or interpret evidence, (3) exculpatory profiling (profiling evidence of innocence), (4) pretrial research to establish probative versus prejudicial value of evidence, and (5) sufficiency analyses to determine maximum likelihood of guilt, given multiple items of evidence. Among these, the first two are considered most important, as it can be demonstrated that many profiling characteristics currently admitted in trial (such as evidence of battery to support a murder charge) are not probative of guilt.     

When Are People Persuaded By DNA Match Statistics?

The way in which statistical DNA evidence is presented to legal decision makers can have a profound impact on the persuasiveness of that evidence. Evidence that is presented one way may convince most people that the suspect is almost certainly the source of DNA evidence recovered from a crime scene. However, when the evidence is presented another way, a sizable minority of people equally convinced that the suspect is almost certainly not the source of the evidence. Three experiments are presented within the context of a theory (exemplar cueing theory) for when people will find statistical match evidence to be more and less persuasive. The theory holds that the perceived probative value of statistical match evidence depends on the cognitive availability of coincidental match exemplars. When legal decision makers find it hard to imagine others who might match by chance, the evidence will seem compelling. When match exemplars are readily available, the evidence will seem less compelling. Experiments 1 and 2 show that DNA match statistics that target the individual suspect and that are framed as probabilities (i.e., The probability that the suspect would match the blood drops if he were not their source is 0.1%) are more persuasive than mathematically equivalent presentations that target a broader reference group and that are framed as frequencies (One in 1,000 people in Houston would also match the blood drops). Experiment 3 shows that the observed effects are less likely to occur at extremely small incidence rates. Implications for the strategic use of presentation effects at trial are considered.     

取证主体合法性若干问题

取证主体合法性问题基于中国特殊的制度背景与国情产生,目前有关问题亟待研究解决。对于职能管辖中非管辖侦查单位取证,应当根据案件情况确定其故意性,由此区别“善意管辖”与“恶意管辖”,对后者应否定其侦查取证的有效性,以维护管辖法制;对于纪委取证,基于传闻规则的底线性要求,在诉讼中原则上不能使用其调查的人证,但可以根据证据的形式及用途等设置若干例外;对于立案前调查机关所获证据在审判中的效力,在明确立案意义的基础上,区别强制侦查与任意侦查,允许在审判中采用任意侦查所获证据,否定立案前强制侦查获取证据的效力,但基于"紧急措施"获得证据的除外。     

论大陆法系证据调查及其对我国的启示——以当事人的权利保障为中心

证据调查即证据的审查核实是法官认定案件事实的基础。从大陆法系的民事诉讼立法来看,证据调查都受到了特别的重视,其不仅是民事诉讼中的重要制度,同时也是民事案件审理过程中一个相对独立的程序。证据调查程序在实现其对于事实探知的价值同时也平衡考虑对于当事人的权利保障。而我国民事诉讼中的"证据审核"注重的是如何审查判断证据的技术性规范,而忽略了法官具体审查证据的程序性规范;注重的是法官对于证据的认定,而忽略对于证据的审查核实;注重"结果",而忽略"过程"。因此,我国对于"证据审核"制度的完善一方面应对之通过有效的程序予以约束,另一方面,则应保障当事人在程序中的基本权利。     

论证明的自由

在我国,诉讼法学界一直对自由心证原则持批判和否定态度,大多学者认为自由心证的哲学基础是唯心主义,与我国以马克思辩证唯物主义为指导的“实事求是”证据制度格格不入。但随着学术交流的不断深入,学者们对自由心证的认识也越来越深刻,纷纷著书立说为自由心证正名,认为自由心证恰恰回归到了马克思辩证唯物主义认识论。本文从不同证据制度中对证据审查判断的特殊性的比较入手,对自由心证证据制度作了初步的研究,并分析了我国实事求是的证据制度下审查判断证据的标准及如何进行制度上的完善。     

试论行政处罚证据制度

行政处罚证据是一类不同于其它证据制度的证据。当场行政处罚应当采用以事实为根据和排除滥用职权的证明标准 ;行政机关工作人员看见或感知了违法事实全过程但不当场处罚的案件 ,应当采用以事实为根据和排除合理怀疑的证明标准 ;非当场行政处罚 ,应当采用以证据为根据和排除合理怀疑的证明标准。由于以事实为根据标准的采用 ,要求在行政诉讼中对行政机关认定事实采取尊重的态度。行政处罚证据收集应当在行政处罚决定作出以前 ,作出决定之后收集证据意义不大 ;行政处罚应当采用非法证据排除规则、直接言词证据和案卷排他性原则等规则     

Toward an Empirical Approach to Evidentiary Ruling

This paper responds to criticisms/misconstruals of our measure of the maximum probative value of evidence (D. Davis & W. C. Follette, 2002), and our conclusions regarding the potentially prejudicial role of intuitive profiling evidence, including motive. We argue that R. D. Friedman and R. C. Park's (2003) criticisms and example cases are largely based on inappropriate violation of the presumption of innocence. Further, we address the merits of our absolute difference measure of probative value versus those of the Bayesian likelihood ratio championed by D. H. Kaye and J. J. Koehler (2003). We recommend methods for presentation of measures of evidence utility that convey complexities of interdependence between new and existing evidence. Finally, we propose a probable cause standard for admission of potentially prejudicial evidence, dictating that admissibility of such evidence should be contingent upon other substantial evidence of guilt.     

Relying on the Information of Interested--and Potentially Dishonest--Parties

This article investigates the role of evidence production inthe regulation of private behavior via judicial and administrativeprocess. It proposes a model in which the law makes the agent's"fine" depend on the presentation of evidence whose productioncost, in turn, depends on how the agent has behaved in the regulatedactivity. This view of evidence production has several notableimplications, including that truth finding has no direct rolein deterrence, that nonfalsifiable evidence, even when available,is unlikely to be the best choice for the system, and that "overdeterrence"may well be cost-effective.     

刑事再审事由中的“新证据”、“证据虚假”和“证据不足”

刑事再审理由的设定,关涉到"法的安定性"和"法的公平性"的平衡,是刑事再审制度的核心问题之一。提起的再审是有利于还是不利于被判决人对"新证据"的崭新性、显著性,对"证据虚假"的形式要件、实质要件等都有着直接的影响。我国不应该将"证据不足"这种涉及证据证明力的事由作为再审事由。     

论科学证据的证明力

在事实认定日益科技化的现代诉讼中,科学证据的使用越来越普遍。但由于人们对科学的盲目崇拜,导致了司法实践中对科学证据证明力的误解和盲从时有发生。事实上,科学证据的＂科学性＂有很大的不确定性,有些科学方法的有效性还有待验证。在操作层面上,检材的收集保管过程、鉴定设备和方法以及专家的知识水平和职业操守对科学证据的证明力均有重要影响。作为新一代的＂证据之王＂,科学证据虽然具有非常重要的证明价值,但仅凭科学证据定案是很危险的,从而需要给科学证据设立补强规则。     

行政执法证据进入刑事诉讼的类型分析——基于比较法的视角

从比较法视角观察,进入刑事诉讼的行政执法证据包括行政机关正当执法获得的证据、行政机关"假借行政调查之名"获得的证据、行政机关与侦查机关"共同调查"获得的证据三种类型。为了提供必要的权利保障,在第一种类型下,行政执法证据进入刑事诉讼应满足一定的程序保障;在第二种类型下,审查的重点是行政调查与刑事侦查的界限,防止行政机关"假借行政调查之名"规避刑事诉讼法的适用;在第三种类型下,应当着重审查"共同调查"中的主导机关、调查措施、调查目的等因素。     

宋代众证定罪规则的历史考察与现代启示

宋代司法重视程序正义,在众证定罪之前,三次讯问之际,法司应向嫌犯出示书证、物证等证人证言以外的其他证据,传统众证定罪原则所强调的言词证据之间互相印证的既有模式因此发生变化。三问程序的创制,是古代言词证据规则的重要创新,实质上是对特殊人群免于刑讯特权的间接否定,即实施三问以后,嫌犯不再享有豁免掠治之特别关照。在三问前置、刑讯为辅的规则之下,宋代众证定罪证据规则经体系重构而实现自洽,对于改变以口供为中心的司法传统,构建各种证据相互印证的机制发挥了重要作用。     

论医疗纠纷诉讼中的证据协力义务

由于医疗活动的高度专业性，因而在医疗纠纷诉讼中存在证据偏在、医患武器不平等严重问题。证据协力义务是居于“准确”、“公正”、“和谐”、“效率”等的价值基础。共在医疗纠纷诉讼中的适用具有正当性。建议通过医疗机构的阐明病历义务，对证人、鉴定人违反证据协力义务的制裁，证人拒绝提供证言权等规范来弥补医疗纠纷诉讼中证据协力义务的结构性缺失，以增加医疗纠纷诉讼中证据协力义务规范的可预测性。     

Statistical Inference and Forensic Evidence: Evaluating a Bullet Lead Match

This experiment tested the ability of undergraduate mock jurors (N=295) to draw appropriate conclusions from statistical data on the diagnostic value of forensic evidence. Jurors read a summary of a homicide trial in which the key evidence was a bullet lead "match" that was either highly diagnostic, non-diagnostic, or of unknown diagnostic value. There was also a control condition in which the forensic "match" was not presented. The results indicate that jurors as a group used the statistics appropriately to distinguish diagnostic from non-diagnostic forensic evidence, giving considerable weight to the former and little or no weight to the latter. However, this effect was attributable to responses of a subset of jurors who expressed confidence in their ability to use statistical data. Jurors who lacked confidence in their statistical ability failed to distinguish highly diagnostic from non-diagnostic forensic evidence; they gave no weight to the forensic evidence regardless of its diagnostic value. Confident jurors also gave more weight to evidence of unknown diagnostic value. Theoretical and legal implications are discussed.     

对“法律真实”证明标准的质疑

无论是刑事实体法律规范还是刑事程序法律规范都不具有判定案件事实是否真实的功能。“法律真实”所陈述的基本内容与判定证据是否充分的标准重复 ,所以“法律真实”证明标准是不能成立的 ,“法律真实”这个概念是一个伪概念。“客观真实”标准是判定证据是否真实和是否充分的有机统一 ,对传统“客观真实说”作一些必要的限定之后 ,客观真实标准仍然是刑事诉讼证明的基本标准。     

微量物证匹配的描述:一个法律视角

本文描述了用于规范法庭科学证言的英美证据法，这些法庭科学证言主要是解释微量物证之匹配的重要性。本文根据即将出版的维基百科全书法庭科学卷部分改编。     

民事判决中的非法证据排除规则

在民事诉讼中排除非法取得的证据,是最高人民法院通过司法解释确立的一条新的证据规则,该证据规则实施已近10年。由于该规则本身蕴含着程序公正与实体公正等价值与目的的冲突,审判实务中适用该规则遇到了相当大的困难。审判实务中较为普遍的做法是,根据规则所确立的"侵害他人合法权益"和"违反法律禁止性规定"这两条非法证据认定标准,采用利益衡量的方法,结合案件中收集证据的具体情形来作出排除与否的决定。法院在适用该规则时,尽管对部分取证方法为非法已经取得了广泛的共识,但对另一部分取证方法合法与否,仍存在着较大的分歧。     

刑事证明标准中主客观要素的关系

我国刑事证据法将"排除合理怀疑"引入证明标准之中,是从过去注重外在的、客观化的证明要求走向重视裁判者内心确信程度的重要立法尝试。这种立法尝试既不是对"证据确实、充分"标准的简单解释,也不是要降低我国刑事诉讼中的证明标准,而是从裁判者主观认识的角度重新确立裁判者认定犯罪事实的证明标准。在一定程度上,我国刑事证据法尽管仍然保留了"事实清楚,证据确实、充分"的形式化证明要求,但其内核已经被"排除合理怀疑"标准所取代。