不在场证据的证明——以台湾地区南回铁路翻车案为说明

在刑事案件审理时,不在场证明是律师反败为胜的最佳工具。但如何证明不在场,却不是那么容易。本文即欲探讨,关于不在场证明到底如何论证,并以台湾地区"南回铁路翻车案"为核心,来说明不在场证据的证明。     

嫌疑人篇:不认罪者欢迎律师

对两次试验,律师们都很欢迎。那么,犯罪嫌疑人和警察的态度如何呢? 为了得出明确答案,项目主持者分别找了参与试验的警察、律师在场接受讯问的犯罪嫌疑人和律师不在场接受讯问的犯罪嫌疑人进行了相关调查。     

李来的官司

一份确信无疑的遗赠扶养协议书，却因其他共有人提出异议。引来了一场近半年的官司。好在签《订遗赠扶养协议书》时有公证人员在场公证以及其他见证人在场证明。有了这样充分的证据，李来终于打赢了这场官司。     

侦查讯问时律师在场之我见

是否规定侦查讯问时律师在场,与一国的经济社会发展水平、历史传统、法律文化等密切相关。本文在肯定侦查讯问时律师在场积极作用的同时,从律师在场对获取犯罪嫌疑人供述的影响、我国司法证明所处的发展阶段、控制犯罪与保障人权平衡、外国的立法例及侦查保密原则等方面,论证了我国现阶段对侦查讯问时律师在场要持慎重态度,并提出了防止刑讯逼供的制度性建设的意见。     

论我国侦查讯问阶段律师在场制度的构建

律师在场权源于律师辩护权,是刑事辩护权的重要组成部分,辩护权是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在刑事诉讼中所享有的一项基本权利,体现了刑事诉讼法中人权保障的理念。现代各国刑事诉讼法或判例都承认了律师在场权的正当性,在我国,如何构建侦查讯问程序律师在场制度,具体应针对律师在场权的内容、适用范围、行使程序、保障措施等一整套规则进行探讨和分析。     

审讯“一对一”贿赂案件的思考

＂一对一＂贿赂案件是指行贿人向受贿人行贿时,只有行贿人和受贿人两个人在场,没有第三人证明的情况。这种案件即使只有行贿人或受贿人一方承认,     

从德国公证的业务说起

在德国．公证人的信誉是至高无上的。公证人出具的公证书和认证书的真实性毋需怀疑．也不用找出证据来证明自己办理公证的真实性。办理遗嘱公证、现场监督公证及办理股东会公证等．公证人一人就可以办理．无需两个公证人员在场。但是．如果有充足的证据证明公证人作假．就会承担很重的法律责任。公证人的信誉不单单依赖于个人的道德品质，而是有一套完整的法律保障措施。     

黑暗中的绿光

某地发生一起杀人案，据警方调查，对死者怀有杀意的有三个人。A是一名工地保安员，B是一家鱼店主人，C是一名汽车司机，他们三人在案发时都没有不在场证明。另据警方了解，案发时，有人看见案发现场有一点点亮的绿光。亲爱的朋友们，谁是罪犯呢？     

第五讲 香港刑法

<正> 一、刑事证据在刑事诉讼过程中,充分有力的证据是控方使法庭消除所有合理的疑虑,否则控诉的罪名便无法成立。换句话说,法庭对控方的证据有疑虑,则对被告有利。例如,某人在银行被抢劫的现场,被搜出刀等凶器,则其嫌疑是很大的,但如果他被以抢劫罪受到控告,则法庭很可能认为他不过是过路人,刚巧路过现场,可能是清白的。再如,如果某甲在证人席上作证,证明他亲眼看见被告人行劫,但另一个证人证明被告当时不在场。在这种情况下法庭不     

调查显示：多数警察讯问时不希望律师在场

“有一个不穿警服的人在场，我觉得安全多了，说话也不慌了。”16岁的小杨因涉嫌抢劫被带到北京市海淀区公安局接受讯问，原本非常紧张的他因为讯问时有律师在场，觉得踏实多了。     

论不在犯罪现场的证明

我国2012年《刑事诉讼法》所确立的不在犯罪现场的辩方开示义务如“邯郸学步”,这是把一种可能无需法律规制的常识判断转化为一种程序规则“。不在犯罪现场的证据”具有无罪的指向性、整体的意见性以及形态的中介性,这一概念发展了证据形式和证据种类的理论。然而这个规则既无根基也无后果,一方面,在我国官方垄断取证的背景之下“,不在犯罪现场”的辩护不可能对控方造成突然袭击,还可能被认为是狡辩而不受待见,而辩护方的所有取证活动必须汇集到控方的单向证明活动之中才被看做是证据;另一方面,倘若被告人并未履行“不在犯罪现场”的证据开示义务,尽管出于辩护本能,根本没有这种可能,对被告人而言,也没有相应的惩罚后果。须知在英美法系国家为寻找真相而要求庭前开示不在犯罪现场的证据也可能事与愿违。因此,在我国“不在犯罪现场”的证明只关注了为了削弱程序抗辩的证据交换问题,而未考虑辩护方的证据收集能力的前提问题以及控诉方怠于为反对抗辩而积极取证的责任问题。在此背景下,基于无罪推定原则,不在犯罪现场的抗辩是辩护方证否的权利,及早提出可以防止追诉机关的错误积重难返;又基于举证责任分配原则,不在犯罪现场的证明反而是控诉方要承担的一个证实的义务,要求其积极核实和审查。     

违法诱惑侦查所获证据之证据能力研究

对于诱惑侦查而言，“机会引诱”因本为合法之侦查取证行为，故其所获证据当为合法，可作为法庭审判定案之根据；但“犯意引诱”作为一种违法侦查行为，一旦成立，则应当排除其所获之全案证据。违法诱惑侦查，系国家制造犯罪，已经逾越侦查犯罪之必要程度、违反宪法对于基本人权之保障、对于公共利益之维护并无意义，因其在性质上已经属于极端严重的违法侦查行为，因此，对于违法诱惑侦查所获之证据，无论言词证据，还是实物证据，均应一律排除。如果被告在审判中提出其遭受侦查机关违法诱惑侦查的抗辩时，类似于被告提出其遭受警方刑讯逼供的抗辩，应由检察官承担证明该阻却犯罪成立事由不存在的举证责任，且由于该事实为直接影响被告罪责之实体事实，因此，举证时应当适用严格证明法则，并应证明至排除合理怀疑（高度盖然性）的程度。     

刑事主观事实的证明问题初探

刑事主观事实的证明是一个世界性难题,仅靠口供等直接证据证明往往不够。间接证据证明和刑事推定是目前通行的两种有效方法,但我国的刑事立法和司法解释没有明确区分二者。间接证据体系的证明标准过高和间接证据不能单独直接证明主要案件事实共同导致间接证据证明的适用范围很有限．相应地可考虑降低证明标准和改变传统做法。刑事推定是另一种重...     

构成要件与诉讼证明关系论纲

刑事程序法以证据来证明犯罪事实，刑事实体法以犯罪事实符合犯罪构成要件来认定犯罪。构成要件与诉讼证明以犯罪事实为纽带紧密关联，相互影响。犯罪构成要件通过对犯罪事实的勾勒和形塑决定证明方向，划定证明范围，依据不同要件的分类影响证明责任的分配。诉讼证明对犯罪构成要件的影响主要是通过实践中惯常性的证明困难倒逼犯罪构成要件就其结构和具体要素作出必要的调整和修正。引入绝对责任和客观处罚条件、构建阶梯型罪名、设立抽象危险犯、建立推定制度以及通过刑法解释合理缩减证明范围，将主观要件类型化为若干客观情节都是刑法为了满足证明的需要就犯罪构成要件作出的完善。     

Rebutting the Presumption: Rethinking the Common Law Principle of Marital Coercion in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century England

While many historians refer to the legal presumption of marital coercion when discussing patterns of lenient judicial treatment of women in eighteenth-and nineteenth-century English criminal trials, few have analyzed the presumption in enough detail to ascertain the impact it genuinely had. This article undertakes close legal analysis of marital coercion. It argues that the presumption was not frequently referred to in nineteenth-century Old Bailey criminal trials for receiving stolen goods because of increasing judicial strictness as to the application of the presumption. A defendant had to prove her marriage, her husband’s presence at the crime scene, and, by the nineteenth century, evidence of her husband’s actual control. The presumption may have shifted from an irrebuttable presumption to one rebuttable upon proof that any of these requirements were absent. Therefore, women’s lenient court treatment during the modern period cannot be straightforwardly attributed to frequent successful recourse to marital coercion.     

The Plea of Alibi in International Criminal Law as Viewed Through the Prism of the Common Law

The plea of alibi has acquired a prominent place in the short history of modern international criminal law, just as it does in common law criminal trials. At the ICTR, for instance, it is pleaded in virtually every case. It is expected that alibi will continue to vex the processes of international criminal courts and tribunals, especially given the exclusive focus of international criminal law on individual criminal responsibility, much of which has to do with the presence of accused persons at scenes of planning, conspiracy, instigation, aiding and abetting and execution of crimes. The plea of alibi in international criminal law is still a concept under construction. Jurisprudence is rife with uncertain propositions, tentative analyses and incomplete ideas. In the circumstances, there is a need to pay close attention to this area of the law. A constant review is required, with the aim of improving the law of alibi for its future application in international criminal proceedings. An attempt at such a review is made in the present article. The author reviews, among other things, the meaning of the term ??alibi??; whether it is a ??defence??; the feature of notice of alibi; burdens of proof in alibi cases, the prosecutorial duty to disprove the alibi, the need for clarity in the application of the principle of prosecutorial duty to disprove the alibi, and whether there should be a prosecutorial duty to investigate the alibi when timely notice is given; as well as alibi and the right to silence. The author approaches the discussions from the perspective of the common law, primarily due to the prominence of the plea of alibi in common law criminal trials in contrast to inquisitorial criminal trials.     

Mitigation Evidence and the Ethical Role of a Defense Attorney in a Capital Case

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Furman v. Georgia. This landmark case changed the death penalty in the United States. In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme Court made it clear that mitigating factors were to be heard before sentencing to ensure individualized sentencing. Every defendant has a story, a family, a childhood, trauma, and celebration—a reason their life should be spared from execution. In a capital case, a defense attorney’s ethical role is to craft that story and articulate it in a way that enables the jury to have a complete picture of the defendant’s background and character as they decide his punishment. Mitigating factors are not an excuse for the defendant’s behavior, but rather an insight into who the defendant is and what has shaped his life. A defense attorney’s ethical duty in a capital case is to argue the case on all legal points and to present a thorough investigation of mitigating evidence. A thorough investigation of all such evidence is required by case law and explained by the standards set forth by the ABA guidelines.     

严格责任还是特别辩护权?——对我国事态犯罪归责方式的反思

事态犯罪是一种新型犯罪。该类犯罪使刑法首次将调整对象由传统的行为性危害行为括及于事态性危害行为,因此对犯罪证明责任这一刑法基本理论问题产生了重大冲击。严格责任是解决相关问题的最简便方法,但与我国的刑事法制环境不相适合。因此,为了实现控辩双方权益的平衡,应当设立事态犯罪嫌疑人特别辩护权制度。     

有利被告论探究——以实体刑法为视角

实体意义上的有利被告,作为罪刑法定与刑法的明确性原则的一条派生与补足原则,指的是当刑法适用上遇有暂时"解释不清"的疑难时,应该做出有利于被告的选择。它可以从国家作为立法者应对刑法规定不明承担的责任、刑法的人权保障机能、刑法与刑事诉讼法的立法精神、刑法的正当目的以及传统刑事政策等诸多维度得到证成。从有利被告的立场出发,在刑法解释领域,应当排除违背立法精神的不利被告的解释,允许不违背立法精神的有利被告的解释;在定罪环节,应当坚持"疑罪从无"与"罪疑惟轻"的规则:在量刑环节,应当排除违背立法精神的重刑选择,而允许不违背立法精神的轻刑选择。