我国刑事法官庭审指挥权之探讨

近年来我国的刑事审判方式改革一直强调弱化法官在庭审中的职权,而主张学习英美当事人主义模式下法官的消极克制。但是,弱化法官职权并让法官消极克制并不意味着可以取消法官在庭审中的能动性。为实现审判之目的,保障庭审公正、高效和有序,必须赋予法官庭审指挥权。庭审指挥权包括诉讼许可和禁止权、程序异议裁决权、庭审引导权和告知权、证据调查指挥权、诉讼进程控制权和庭审秩序维持权。在我国,应当建立科学合理的庭审指挥权体系以及控辩双方权利救济机制,促进法官行使自由裁量权的客观化和检察官地位的当事人化,并通过转变司法观念和提高法官素质保障庭审指挥权的正当行使。     

审判长怎样驾驭好庭审活动

“控辩式”的刑事审判方式，决定了法官居中裁判，控辩双方诉讼对抗的庭审局面，形成了审、控、辩三方诉讼地位相对独立的格局。作为一名组织指挥庭审活动的审判长，在控辩双方激烈对抗中驾驭好庭审活动的全过程，保证法庭秩序井然，庭审有条不紊，查清案件事实，显得尤为...     

论庭前证据调查准备

庭前证据调查准备是一套在法官主持下,以庭前会议为作业平台,内含了控、辩、审三方互动合作及对抗而形成的一系列诉讼行为的诉讼工作机制,其关系着庭审实质化改革的效果.证据展示是庭前证据调查准备的基础与前提,包括了以"重要者优先"为原则的展示顺序,以控、辩双方为主的展示主体以及拟在庭审中出示的证据为限的证据展示内容.庭前调查准备的核心与内容涵括整理证据和归纳争点两部分.其中,整理证据是在遵循"表态而不论证""补漏而不辩真""说明而不证明"三项标准的基础上对证据的种类、证据形式、证据来源、拟证明的对象和内容及人证出庭名单进行梳理.而归纳争点即是法官在进行证据整理后以此为基础归纳案件争点,便于庭审时以争点为庭审实质化审理的重点.争点可依其自然形成之状态划分为证据争点、事实争点与法律争点.此外,庭前证据调查准备亦涵盖调查新证据与排除非法证据两个专门事项.     

刑事庭审若干问题探讨

我国1996年刑事诉讼法对审判制度进行了重大改革,尤其是在庭审方式方面,吸收了对抗制的合理因素,强化了控辩双方的对抗性,使庭审功能进一步加强。立法的问题解决了,关键就在于司法实践的运作。毋庸讳言,新的审判方式在具体运作上还存在一些问题,控、辩、审三方作用发挥不够,庭审走过场的情况仍然存在。本文针对刑事庭审中存在的主要问题谈一点个人看法。关于庭审方式改革问题我国1979年刑事诉讼法所确立的审判方式,职权主义色彩比较重。主要缺点表现在过于突出庭审中法官的主导作用,控辩双方的对抗性不强;法官庭前对控方证据进行实体审查,在…     

从我国刑事法庭设置看刑事审判构造的完善

刑事法庭的设置因其直观形象地反映了控、辩、审三方诉讼主体在审判中所处的法律地位和相互关系而成为刑事审判构造的重要表征。由于我国古代以“审讯”为核心的审判模式的影响、被告人沉默权的缺失以及刑事审判方式改革不够彻底等原因,导致我国现行刑事法庭设置呈现出“伞型”特征。重塑我国刑事审判构造,应当去除目前庭审方式的“审讯”色彩,加强庭审的“听证”性,建立审判中立、控辩平等、当事人主导的“正等腰三角形”的审判构造。     

关于刑事一审庭审变革的思考

关于刑事一审庭审变革的思考巩宏（一）现代意义上的刑事庭审应体现诉讼的科学性和诉讼的民主性，从而达到诉讼的最高公正。欲达此目的，就需建立起一集控、辩、审三位于一体的最佳组合结构，使诉讼三方之职能充分发挥而最终集于一点──审判。该诉讼结构可以形象地比喻为...     

论刑事诉讼控辩职能的平衡

根据诉讼参与者在诉讼中的地位、职责和各自目的的差异,理论上通常把诉讼分解为不同的职能。在刑事诉讼中,主要分为控诉职能、辩护职能和审判职能。控诉职能就是由检控方控告并证明犯罪行为,辩护职能就是由被告人及其律师证明被告人无罪或罪轻,审判职能就是由法官居中裁判。正是由于这三种诉讼职能的存在和划分,才构成现代控辩式刑事诉讼制度的基本框架。修正后的《刑事诉讼法》确立了控、辩、审三方面分工     

论建立健全刑事诉讼中证人出庭作证的保障机制

修改后的刑事诉讼法，在系统总结我国多年来司法实践经验和教训的基础上，吸收借鉴了国外当事人主义诉讼方式的合理因素，对法庭审判方式作了重大改革。主要表现在：（1）变庭前实体审查为程序性审查。即人民法院对人民检察院提起公诉的案件在开庭审判前，只审查起诉书中是否有明确的指控犯罪事实和是否附有证据目录、证人名单及主要证据复印件或者照片，而不问犯罪事实是否清楚、证据是否充分；（2）在整个庭审调查过程中，控、辩、审三方的职能有重大调整，主要由控辩双方举证、作交叉讯问（发问）质证和互相辩论，法官主动调查的职能弱化…     

刑事诉讼法与法官的中立地位

法官中立是司法的性质与特征所决定。是法治国家的重要特征。然而，人们以往仅仅将其作为一种观念、一种思想束之高阁，党的十五大提出“依法治国，建设社会主义法制国家”的治国方略，并提出“推进司法改革”的配套措施，从而为法官中立这一命题打下了坚实的理论和实践基础，本文拟讨论如何把这一观念“物化”在审判过程中。 一、英美法系关于法官地位的规定 英美法系国家在刑事审判中普遍实行对抗式模式，刑事审判活动主要围绕控、辩双方的举证与相互反驳而进行的，法官（包括陪审团）处于居中裁判的地位。控、辩、审三方分别以不同的方式…     

对“检警一体化”的思考——从侦查程序监督机制优化角度考察

目前中国的侦查程序中不存在典型的“控、辩、裁三方相互制衡”的诉讼形态,带有极强的行政职权主义色彩。侦查程序与当事人主义、审判为中心的刑事司法改革目标难趋一致,成为刑事诉讼改革的焦点。实行检警一体化,实现两者职能的紧密结合,切实加强检察机关对侦查活动的监督,确立犯罪嫌疑人的诉讼主体地位,已刻不容缓。     

Beyond normative constraints: Declining institutionalism and the emergence of substantive and procedural justice

Popular notions of what it means to be put on trial invariably generate thoughts of the adversarial criminal trial, most often before a judge and jury. However, the criminal trial as the site for the testing of evidence of wrongdoing via a model of proof that proceeds according to prescribed processes in a normative institutional milieu is in decline. Controversially, this decline has been met with resistance from the legal profession, academics, policy makers and other stakeholders seeking to preserve the due process model that defines the criminal trial as an adversarial exchange between state and defendant. While the due process model continues to dominate as popular conceptualisation, the twenty-first century criminal trial has changed to such an extent that it is no longer seen as the quintessential form for the meting out of procedural fairness and testing of state's evidence, that emerged toward the end of the seventeenth century. Rather, the rise of control orders, modifications to the law of evidence, and the right of the accused to confront their accuser, together with the inclusion of non-traditional agents of justice, specifically victims and the community, has brought forward an era of substantive and procedural justice that lies beyond the normative constraints of the criminal trial. Robed counsel and bewigged judges beware; the advent of substantive and procedural justice has allowed for greater innovation transgressing the orthodoxies of criminal law in common law systems of justice. This paper will consider the virtues of the introduction of a transgressive criminal procedure.     

Seeing the improvement of the criminal trial structure from China’s criminal courtroom arrangements (tribunal design)

The setting of criminal court has become an important representation of the criminal trial structure due to its visual and vivid reflection of the legal position and relations among the three parties of litigation, i.e. the prosecuting party, the advocating party and the judge. As a result of the influence of ancient “inquest” centered trial mode, lack of the defendant’s right to silence and incomplete revolution of the criminal trial mode, the existing criminal court setting features an umbrella shaped structure. To reform the criminal trial structure in China, we should eliminate the air of “inquest” from the existing court interrogation mode, strengthen the hearing of evidence and set up a equiangular triangle shaped trial structure of neutral trial, equality between the prosecuting and advocating parties and litigant oriented. __________ Translated from the Jurist Review, 2005, (2) (in Chinese)     

从纸上谈兵到水滴石穿——非法口供排除程序的构造反思

高举人权保障大旗的刑事诉讼立法淡化了刑事诉讼构造的路径选择,但是,基于一种结构缺陷,我国新近立法所确立和完善的审判前供述排除规则很容易沦为"纸面上的法"而难以转化为"行动中的法"。一方面,因为没有庭前法官和庭审法官的分离与法官和陪审团的分权,一元化的法庭可能会造成非法获取的口供从大门排除又从窗户跳进,而"口供排除"和"宣读口供"的两阶段在质证上存在着叠床架屋,更有为普遍地采纳审判前供述这一传闻证据"背书"的反其道而行之的趋势。另一方面,控辩不平等导致庭审最终落入长于法律辩论而轻视事实调查的旧习,而法官也陷入到底是积极调查还是消极听审的内在职责冲突之中。因此,本文设想以案例指导跳脱立法中心主义的虚无缥缈,以配套程序摆脱实质判断标准的人言人殊。     

案卷笔录中心主义——对中国刑事审判方式的重新考察

中国刑事审判中存在着一种“以案卷笔录为中心”的审判方式。在这一审判方式下,公诉方通过宣读案卷笔录来主导和控制法庭调查过程,法庭审判成为对案卷笔录的审查和确认程序,不仅各项控方证据的可采性是不受审查的,而且其证明力也被作出了优先选择。结果。现代刑事证据规则在这种审判方式下难以有存在的基础,法庭审理只能流于形式,那种通过当庭审判来形成裁判结论的机制和文化难以形成。不抛弃这种案卷笔录中心主义的审判方式,任何以加强庭审功能为宗旨的司法改革将没有存在的空间。     

论被告人的处遇

刑事审判的运行蕴含着一个"悖论",在强调不应将被告人当作审判对象的同时又不得不针对被告人进行评价,被告人徘徊于主体与客体之间的尴尬境地。刑事审判这个场域中交融着实体和程序两种因素,显示了实体法与程序法发生着一种微妙的相互控制,并彰显了刑事程序的内在魅力。刑事司法运作的逻辑是"审判"先于"犯罪"先于"刑罚"而发生,要实现由"被告人"到"犯罪者"或者"无辜者"的角色定位,这是一项理性的事业,在这个空间里面,程序是第一性的,实体是第二性的。因而,永远不要把被告人当作审判对象,实质是一种程序理想,更是应有的理论立场。     

Psychological effects of criminal proceedings through contact with the judge: the moderating effect of legal system structure

Psychological effects of criminal proceedings on victims have often been the focus of victimological research. The criminal justice system is repeatedly acknowledged as a source of additional harm for victims. Such a generalization, however, cannot be made to all legal systems universally to the same degree. This article compares the adversarial and inquisitorial structures of criminal justice and examines how the latter may in fact be beneficial to victim's well-being. More specifically, contact with the judge and presence at trial may be one positive form of victim participation in its most informal sense. Hierarchical regression analysis is conducted using victims of serious crimes in the Netherlands and New South Wales (NSW), Australia, to test this hypothesis. The type of legal system (i.e., inquisitorial versus adversarial) is used as a moderating variable on the relationship between contact with the judge and psychological effects. The findings indicate that victims in the Netherlands report a significant relationship, where contact with the judge is predictive of a less negative impact on psychological effects, while a non-significant relationship is found for victims in NSW.     

The Impact of Court Delays on the Prosecutor and the Defendant: An Economic Analysis

One important aspect of the economic theory of criminal court delay is to understand how the prosecutor and the defendant make their decisions, and how these respond to changes in trial delay. If both parties jointly maximise expected utility, trial delay may increase or decrease the number of trials, depending upon the decision makers' attitudes towards risk. The main policy implication is that providing the criminal courts with more resources in the form of additional judges and court capacity may lengthen the trial queue rather than shorten it. This is a counterintuitive result contrary to popular belief.     

刑事卷证与技术审判

从证据手段在审判中的运用来看,以卷证为基础的欧陆主要法治国家的刑事审判可以界定为一种技术审判,而英美以口证为主要手段的刑事审判大致属于一种经验审判。我国普遍运用卷证的刑事审判也可归为一种技术审判方式,但由于对卷证的过度依赖、司法者职业化和专业化程度不高和刑事卷证运用的程序性制约机制的欠缺,导致我国技术审判的异化。当下推行的以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革并非是对刑事卷证运用的根本否定,相反,为我国刑事卷证在审判中运用的制度改革奠定了基础。     

论工具型刑事庭审文化

工具型刑事庭审文化是指将刑事庭审作为维护国家统治的手段,将刑事庭审作为行使国家权力的方式的群体观念。工具型刑事庭审文化主要包括目的决定观和权力支配观。工具型刑事庭审文化具有力量的不均衡性、信息的不对称性和过程的虚伪性等特点,隐藏着导致官本位观念、滋生司法腐败、扭曲民众观念等危害,因而与法治的发展趋向相悖。     

构建程序化的取保候审制度——兼论英国保释制度对我国的借鉴意义

取保候审的适用在司法实践中出现了许多问题 ,致使超期羁押、变相羁押已经成为目前刑事诉讼的最突出问题。文中对我国取保候审制度的基础进行了反思 ,认为应当将取保候审确认为犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的一项权利 ,并借鉴英国的保释实践 ,提出了构建程序化的取保候审制度的设想。