让尾巴摇狗：美国情态证据实证研究

情态证据指的是在庭审时,被告人或证人等的面部、声音或身体等各部分及其整体上表现出来的能够证明案件真实情况的材料。情态证据至今仍被（西方）法律认可为判断证人可靠性的重要基础,在现代司法中起着至关重要的作用。确保审判者能够观察证人作证时情态的机会,为公开审判（开庭审判）提供了历史的和现代的正当性。在美国司法体系中,陪审团可以合法运用证人席上证人的情态证据;对于证人席外情态证据的使用则在实际上存在,法律上没有形成统一而稳定的规范。法官可以在证据排除、藐视法庭罪、量刑、听证、案件事实判断和陪审团选择程序中使用情态证据。检察官可以在辩诉交易和量刑建议、陪审团候选人＂无因排除＂和审判程序中合理使用情态证据。律师在诉讼过程中不仅从法律意义上,更从诉讼策略意义上运用情态证据。     

传闻证据排除规则──外国证据规则系列之三

传闻证据是英美证据法上的传统概念之一。传闻证据规则,是指除非法律另有规定, 传闻证据不得采纳。排除传闻证据的理论基础植根于陪审团审判的诉讼制度及传闻证据的自身缺陷。但也有一些传闻证据被判例法和立法所肯定,由此形成了传闻规则的例外。随着现代社会动态性的不断增强,传闻证据应予排除的一般法则开始有所松动。     

简构电子证据的取证程序

以电子计算机技术为代表的电子技术正飞速发展,以电子计算机设备为核心的电子设备已广泛普及,这使得相当多国家的政务及商务均电子化,随之而起的纠纷或者与之有关的犯罪也就不得不依靠电子证据才能得以解决和查处。作为一种新的形式证据,电子证据的概念和电子证据的采纳、采信等问题已引发理论界和实务界的普遍关注。如何认识、收集和审查判断电子证据,是正确运用电子证据的前提和基础。本文仅就电子证据的取证程序提出一些看法。     

美国无罪证据开示制度研究

随着近年来美国刑事错案的研究进展,人们发现,在检察官不端行为所导致的错案当中,办案检察官不开示无罪证据这一原因占据了首位.从1963年联邦最高法院确立无罪证据开示制度以来,50多年的实践表明,该制度是美国最具有争议,检察官最不愿意执行的制度之一.随着检察官隐瞒无罪证据导致的错案不断被发现,近年来呼吁强化检察官无罪证据开示义务的声音越来越强烈,但是几次改革却都以失败告终.美国检察官无罪证据开示制度虽然还不尽如人意,但有关研究已经表明,检察官开示无罪证据对于防范冤假错案是非常重要的.美国的相关经验和教训对于防范冤假错案、构建我国的证据制度意义重大.     

科学标准在社会和法庭科学证据中的应用

在当今的司法程序中越来越多地应用科学技术来证明争议事实,但这种应用也存在一些争议和问题。有关证据和证明程序规则的存在．在本质上,并没有同科学证据的应用和采纳在任何方式上存在冲突。相反,如果存在非认知性的程序规则,其结果是这样的规则应该被撤销。除了物理、化学、工程学和遗传学等“解释性科学”得以广泛应用之外,心理学、社会学...     

论电子商务中的电子证据

本文对电子证据与传统证据进行了分析对比,指出了电子证据的特征,提出了对电子证据的可采纳性与证明力,以及在诉讼和仲裁中如何审查判断、使用电子证据等,发表了有见地的观点,对立法机关和司法实践都有一定的参考价值.     

药物麻醉分析中的法律问题

司法精神病鉴定中被鉴定人也享有沉默权。因为享有沉默权的主体包括所有公民，使用的时机是任何有可能导致被追究刑事责任的时候，沉默权的效果之一是禁止使用麻醉分析方法收集证据。因此所有在麻醉分析过程中获得的材料都不得被作为证据采纳。但是鉴定结论可以作为专家证据由法庭决定是否采纳。     

新民事诉讼证据司法解释后电子证据问题研究

网络已深人到社会生活的各个层面，尤其在电子商务领域，数据电文已成为重要的交易记录和载体。因而其作为民事诉讼证据出现是社会科技经济发展的必然趋势。电子证据作为一种新的证据形式已被国际上许多国家所接受，我国司法实践中也逐渐将其纳人可采纳证据范畴。2002年4月1日生效。     

庭前证据展示制度构建

刑事诉讼中庭前证据展示不宜由法官来主持,证据展示的控方主体是主诉检察官,申请证据展示应是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的辩护律师的一项诉讼权利,同时控方也可提起证据展示程序,证据展示的时间应在检察机关受理公诉案件之日起,到开庭之日止这段时间内进行。     

我国证据立法应当明确的几个问题

一些国家由于不信任法律的专家———法官 ,所以将审查证据的权利交给了不具备法律知识的陪审团。我国没有陪审团制度对法官的制约 ,全部查明事实 (即审查证据 )和适用法律的权利都由法官行使 ,这就要求我国的证据立法应当从证明责任的分配、证据资格、明确证据标准问题、证据的证明力问题、质证问题等方面给予完善。     

The Prosecutor and the Presumption of Innocence

In what ways is the conduct of prosecutors constrained by the presumption of innocence? To address this question, I first develop an account of the presumption in the trial context, according to which it is a vital element in a moral assurance procedure for the justified infliction of legal punishment. Jurors must presume the factual innocence of defendants at the outset of trials and then be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the government’s evidence before they convict defendants. Prosecutors’ responsibilities to promote the integrity of this moral assurance procedure are then divided into pre-trial, during-trial, and post-trial phases. Since most charge adjudication is effected through plea bargaining, the ways in which plea procedures must be modified to conform to this moral assurance procedure, and thus honor the presumption of innocence, are also discussed.     

Negotiated Case-ending Settlements: Ways of Speeding up the (Court) Process

The subject of this article is a special type of fast-tracked case-ending decisions called “negotiated case-ending settlements”. Those proceedings are based on a kind of agreement between the parties, end with a real conviction of the offender and their legal consequence is a true but mitigated punishment. They can be found in six of 11 countries studied, namely, in England & Wales, Croatia, France, Hungary, Poland and Spain. The English guilty plea procedures, the French appearance before a court after prior admission of guilt and the Polish prosecutor’s application for a conviction to be rendered without a trial as well as the voluntary submission to penalty are examined more closely here. The comparative study focuses on the stage, where the negotiation is made, the conditions for the use of these settlements and the PPS’s role therein.     

Guilt Shall Not Escape or Innocence Suffer? The Limits of Plea Bargaining When Defendant Guilt is Uncertain

This article examines optimal prosecutor behavior with respectto plea bargaining when defendant guilt is uncertain. I showthat when jury beliefs and behavior are determined endogenouslyin equilibrium along with defendant and prosecutor behavior,plea bargaining can play only a limited role in managing society'sconflicting desires to maximize punishment of the guilty andminimize punishment of the falsely accused. In particular, whileit can be optimal for prosecutors to use plea bargaining toinduce a large fraction of guilty defendants to voluntarilysort themselves from the innocent, such sorting must come atthe cost of imposing relatively short sentences on such guiltydefendants who accept plea bargains.     

台湾地区共犯口供的证据规则及其启示

广义上的共犯口供问题包括未共同审理的共犯的口供问题,以及在同一程序中审理的共犯或其它牵连案件被告人等共同被告的口供问题。共犯及共同被告口供问题在台湾地区的证据法上经历了一个从模糊到逐步清晰的发展时期。在台湾地区现行的刑事诉讼制度中,共犯口供在其他被告的案件中作为证人证言,并要求补强证据;对于共同被告则可经程序分离而进行证人的证据调查程序,并且其口供同样也需要补强证据。对于共犯及共同被告口供的处理方式体现出台湾地区对严格证明法则的重视,对被告人程序权利保障的加强,也反映出口供在证据体系中地位的降低,但依然存在一些难题未能解决。台湾地区共犯及共同被告口供的证据规则能给大陆带来一些有益的启示。     

Korean citizen participation in criminal trials: The present situation and problems

As citizen participation in criminal trials was first introduced in 2008, it is advisable to keep the present form of an all-citizen jury system rather than introduce or adopt aspects of the Continental mixed tribunal system because the former system makes the best use of the meaning of Article 1 of the Act of Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials in Korea. Though previously professional judges participated in the deliberation process, under the current system, the new procedure should allow only jurors to engage in deliberations and render verdicts, with sentencing still left to professional judges. The new law should also eliminate a consent agreement required for a defendant in jury trial, thereby making jury trial mandatory for certain classes of heinous crimes like murder or even political crimes; juvenile cases, however, may still be excluded from jury trial. In addition, the exclusion right of the court should also be recognized, but the current comprehensive rule (Article 9 (1) (3)) should be eliminated. It is necessary for the jury verdict to have legal binding force such that the prosecutor cannot appeal the acquittal if the verdict was decided unanimously. Lastly, as for the use of victim participation programs, it is enough to simply allow victims to make statements as witness. This year, on March 6, 2013, the revised system of civil participation in criminal trials has been ready based on the evaluation of the current system by the Committee on Civil Judicial Participation, which was comprised of members from the judiciary, the academia, and civil organizations. The new amendment will be submitted to the National Assembly within this year.     

传闻证据规则与我国刑事诉讼

传闻证据规则源自英美法系,目的是排除不具有可采性的证据,以保障当事人权利及诉讼公正。传闻证据规则的基本精神在我国立法和司法解释中有一定的体现,但在司法实践中这些规定大多落空。传闻证据规则是适应英美法系的当事人主义诉讼和陪审团审判制度而生的,其纷繁复杂的体系在很大程度上阻碍了其他国家对该制度的借鉴。但该规则可以促使证据规范化和精细化,促使证据链条的形成更合理、更科学,保障诉讼公正、高效进行。在我国法制日渐完善的今天,如何合理借鉴国外的传闻证据规则,成为细化我国证据规则和摆脱我国现行刑事审判中诸多缺陷的关键点。     

Expert evidence and hearsay

In upholding the admission of expert evidence, some courts have held that hearsay information conveyed via an expert may be admitted as long as the jury is instructed to ignore the facts asserted in the hearsay statements and to use the information only for determining the weight to attribute to the expert's opinion. Results of a mock juror simulation indicated that although hearsay elements conveyed via an expert were perceived as less likely compared to a condition in which the information was independently admitted at trial, it was not completely ignored by the jurors. Further, the findings tended to suggest that the impact of the hearsay on verdict decisions operated primarily by influencing evaluations regarding the likelihood of the hearsay events as opposed to judgments regarding the expert testimony.     

The Jury as a Translation of Democratic Participation and Political Conflict

In this response to Valerie Hans's Presidential address, I use her “legal translating” term to argue that the implementation of liberal democratic structures in new democracies opens new opportunities to translate the jury system into and onto new democratic societies. While policy makers have concerns about the strength and vibrancy of lay participation in the legal system, policy makers' decisions to adopt trial by jury are not always democratic. Nonetheless, the consequence of the translation of trial by jury furthers democratic development. Using Nicaragua, Mexico, and Russia as case studies, I suggest that one goal of policy makers who attempt to adopt trial by jury is to reduce the discretionary power of judges who remain from the prior government. Comparative trial‐by‐jury research can contribute more to our understanding of democratic development than prior research has indicated.