证人作证豁免权探析

证人作证豁免权是证人的适格性与可强迫性相分离的一种体现 ,它包括“公务特权”、“拒绝自陷于罪”的特权、“亲亲相为隐”的特权、“职务上的特权”和“非法取得证据的排除”等五种情况 ;证人作证豁免权体现了对证人及其相关社会利益与特定社会关系的保护 ,是各种利益均衡的产物 ;我国有关证人作证豁免权的立法阙如 ,未来制定的证据法典应确立一套关于我国证人作证豁免权的法律适用规则。     

美国警察证人豁免权制度评介

美国证人豁免权制度由来已久。由于警察证人属于证人的一种,美国通过判例的形式在证人豁免权制度的基础上确立了警察证人豁免权制度,作为证人豁免权制度的重要组成部分。我国于2012年修正的刑事诉讼法增设了警察出庭作证制度与有限的证人作证豁免权制度,但均未涉及警察证人豁免权问题。尽管目前我国在警察作证方面的主要关注点仍然集中于如何保证这一制度的贯彻和实施,但随着理论和实践的进一步发展,警察证人的豁免权问题会逐步凸显出来。美国在警察证人豁免权制度方面的有关做法,如豁免的权限与范围,豁免的方式与程序等会给我国警察证人出庭作证制度与证人豁免权制度的完善带来一些有益的启示。     

透视证人拒证权的价值理念

证人出庭作证是现代审判制度的必然要求。各国的刑事诉讼法律普遍规定了证人如实作证的义务和违反义务的制裁措施。然而另一方面,大多数国家又赋予了特定身份的证人对作证义务的免责权,即证人在法定情形下享有拒绝作证的特权,包括近亲属关系拒证权、职业秘密拒证权、公务秘密拒证权等等。反观我国刑事诉讼中则根本没有证人拒证权的影子,诉讼法学界对其探讨也较少。有人曾认为证人拒证权是“封建法律亲亲相隐原则的继续,并不符合现代诉讼法的精神”,而对国外关于公务秘密,神职人员的职业秘密等可以享有拒证权的规定,则更被认为是“为…     

警察作证相关问题的分析

随着社会法治进程的不断深入,警察作为证人出庭作证制度逐渐被确立并完善.与此同时,在具体实务中警察作证也存在着种种问题有待进一步研究完善.本文以警察作证为视角,从警察作证的身份、内容、方式、程序、效力和法律责任等问题出发,分析了如何加强警察作证相关问题的立法完善.     

警察作证若干问题研究

从理论上讲,警察作证有着丰富的理论基础及诉讼价值。但在我国,警察以证人身份出席法庭作证尚缺乏立法、理论、观念等诸多方面的足够支撑。其实,警察以证人身份出庭作证不仅必要而且合理。但是警察毕竟不同于其他证人,这就决定了警察作证需要受到一定的限制。目前,在我国创立警察作证制度需要从完善立法、转变观念等方面切入。     

警察应当出席作证

龙宗智先生在其《中国作证制度之三大怪现状评析》(《中国律师)2001年第1期)一文中将“警察不作证”列为我国刑事诉讼中证人作证制度的一大怪现状。在英美法系国家，警察向法庭作证被认为是诉讼制度中天经地义的事情。他们认为警察作为侦查活动的主体，对于证明目击犯罪的情况，对于被告人投案的情况，以及对于侦查中收集物证、获得口供的过程和方法，有着其他证人无法替代的“知情者”身份。     

警察作证制度探析

现代司法实践中，警察出庭作证支持公诉，并接受控辩双方的质询，在英美法系的国家中早已成为天经地义之事，而在我国，警察作为证人出现在法庭之上却实属罕见的事。本文认为，在我国的司法改革过程中警察作证制度的建立是建立公正、文明、科学的刑事司法制度的必然要求。那么我国的立法对警察作证的态度如何？我们又如何来构建我国警察作证体系呢？     

警察应该出庭作证

刑事警察在英美法系国家普遍可以作为控方证人出庭作证,而大陆法系传统理论一般认为证人是专指向司法机关陈述所知案件情况且不具有其他诉讼身份的人员,因而主张主办案件的法官、检察官及协助其侦查犯罪的警察不得同时为证人。我国基本秉承了大陆法系关于证人的界定,所以普遍的观点是将证人和当事人、鉴定人、公安司法人员区别开来。现有不少学者对此提出质疑。那么,在我国司法实践中警察究竟应否出庭作证,警察出庭作证存在哪些障碍,警察作证制度应如何构建呢?     

对警察出庭作证的思考

证人是指除当事人以外了解案件情况并向司法机关作证的诉讼参与人,这在学术界已经达成共识,因而承办刑事案件的警察被排除在了证人之外,而本文主要是对警察就一定范围内的事实应当出庭作证,进行陈述或接受询问进行了论证。     

警察出庭作证制度探析

在很多诉讼案件中,办案警察既是证据的收集者,也是重要的证人,警察出庭作证的合理性是十分肯定的.事实上,世界上很多国家已经将警察作证作为一种通行做法,我国在司法改革中与世界警察作证制度紧密接轨,在新修订的《刑事诉讼法》中对警察出庭作证做出了相关规定.本文对新刑事诉讼法的警察出庭作证新规进行了分析,探讨了警察作证制度发展中的制约因素,并提出了完善对策,旨在促进我国警察出庭作证程序、体系的不断发展.     

警察出庭作证的法理分析

警察出庭作证是诉讼理论和司法实践的需要,在国外也十分普遍但在国内却一直将警察排除在证人之外。虽然两高的解释现在对此有所规定但内容与范围十分片面。我国应建立警察出庭作证制度。     

英国证人制度评介--兼谈我国民事证人制度之完善

证人提供的证言是民事诉讼证据的一种,对于法官裁判具有重要意义。对英、美等国家民事诉讼中的证人资格、证人权利和义务以及证言的提供程序等问题进行了分析。并针对中国目前民事证人制度方面的立法及司法实践现状,提出了完善中国证人制度的构想。     

对强制证人到庭例外规定的思考——评《刑事诉讼法》第188条第1款

2012年修改的《刑事诉讼法》第188条第一款规定＂经人民法院通知,证人没有正当理由不出庭作证的,人民法院可以强制其到庭,但是被告人的配偶、父母、子女除外。＂这一规定并未赋予特定亲属拒绝作证权。《刑事诉讼法》一方面要求被告人的上述亲属必须提供相关证言,同时又允许这些特定亲属拒绝出庭,实际上是以维护家庭关系之名,严重妨害了被告人的对质权,有必要以法治国家通行的亲属拒绝作证权取代强制证人到庭例外规定。     

证人证言适格问题研究

出庭证人转述他人感知事实的陈述,新的证据规则排除其证据资格值得商榷;准许证人提交书面证言的情形并不是书面证言适格的要件,而是免除证人出庭义务的条件,不具备法定不出庭条件而提交的书面证言应当接受为证据;书面证言不是适格的证人证言,但却是适格的书证;出具书面证言并不免除其出庭义务。     

Who is Qualified to Provide Expert Testimony on the Psychological Fitness for Duty of a Police Officer? A Guide for Agencies,Lawyers and Hearing Officers

The Rules of Evidence in the Federal Courts and most State Courts are lenient in qualifying witnesses as experts. This article looks at the most common standard for determining who is qualified to testify as an expert regarding the psychological fitness for duty of a serving police officer. The article then discusses key areas that agencies, attorneys and hearing officers should focus on in determining the credibility of an expert’s testimony. Finally, this paper suggests trial preparation techniques for counsel, should a disputed fitness evaluation become involved in litigation.     

A case study of interpreter-mediated witness statement: police interpreting in South Korea

Interpreters play an important role in police interviewing witnesses from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. In the cases where interpreters lack professional attributes such as interpreting competence and impartiality, it is very likely that the interpreted evidence and statement will not be a faithful reproduction of original utterances. If attention is not paid to possible alterations by interpreters to the original utterances of the witness and duty of care is lacking in the procedure of obtaining statement from witnesses through such interpreters, the official legal record may not be an accurate one. Drawing on the data of a video-recorded interpreter-mediated police interview in South Korea, this paper examines issues arising from the lack of understanding of the role of interpreters, which may have implications for criminal proceedings. The findings indicate that in addition to interpreter training, more efficient police training in the adoption of best practice guidelines in interviewing through interpreters is required.     

Impact of hypnotic testimony on the jury

In the past decade, the forensic use of hypnosis to enhance the memories of victims, witnesses, and defendants has sharply increased. A great deal of controversy surrounds this issue. Some commentators argue that testimony derived from hypnosis should not be allowed as evidence because of its inherent unreliability and the unduly powerful impact it may have on a jury. In the present research, we used a jury simulation technique to study the impact that a hypnotically refreshed witness has upon jurors' decision making. A major finding is that jurors view hypnotic testimony with a certain amount of skepticism. In some respects, its impact is comparable to that of testimony based on delayed recall, and rarely does it have the impact of testimony from an immediate report. In addition, jurors' judgments about hypnotically refreshed testimony affected the way they evaluated other evidence at trial: Jurors who learned that a prosecution witness had been hypnotized were less believing ofother prosecution witnesses than were jurors not exposed to hypnotic testimony. The forensic application of these findings is discussed.This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, Law and Social Sciences Program. We thank Jane Goodman, Doug Leber, Bonnie Sawnson, Russ Wade, Karen Guest, Jonna Barsanti, Don Kline, Elaine Sullivan, and David Kuykendall for their help at various stages of the project.     

被害人陈述与证人证言区别论

被害人陈述与证人证言都属于人证,二者之间的关系极为密切,在我国刑事诉讼法中也有着诸多的共同制度安排,也存在着明显的制度差异.被害人具有当事人与实质证人的双重诉讼角色,虽然没有必须出庭的义务,但却有权全程参与刑事审判,而证人必须是当事人以外的人,在立法上被赋予应当出庭作证的义务,但无权全程参与刑事审判.在证明方向上,被害人陈述具有单向性、控诉性的特征,从而显著区别于证人证言.在主体适格性、庭审质证及作证保障等方面,较之证人证言的相对严密、规范的制度安排,被害人陈述的制度设计有进一步改良的需要.     

Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony

Invalid expert witness testimony that overstated the precision and accuracy of forensic science procedures has been highlighted as a common factor in many wrongful conviction cases. This study assessed the ability of an opposing expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Participants (N = 155) acted as mock jurors in a sexual assault trial that contained both invalid forensic testimony regarding hair comparison evidence, and countering testimony from either a defense expert witness or judicial instructions. Results showed that the defense expert witness was successful in educating jurors regarding limitations in the initial expert's conclusions, leading to a greater number of not-guilty verdicts. The judicial instructions were shown to have no impact on verdict decisions. These findings suggest that providing opposing expert witnesses may be an effective safeguard against invalid forensic testimony in criminal trials.