被追诉人阅卷权研究

近期我国法学界就被追诉人是否享有阅卷权发生了激烈争论.无独有偶,德国也爆发过被追诉人的阅卷权之争.与之类似,美国就被追诉人的证据开示权也曾展开过大讨论.说到底,被追诉人的阅卷权之争其本质就是利益之争.因此,解决被追诉人阋卷权问题最终也只能诉诸利益权衡.德美两国就被追诉人阅卷权以及证据开示权的争论及其结果,无疑有力地驳斥了我国理论界反对被追诉人阅卷权的各种论调,并为我国从立法上赋予被追诉人阅卷权扫清了理念上的障碍.然而,考虑到我国刑事司法体制的特点,要有效确保被追诉人阅卷利益的实现,还必须革新案卷移送制度、提高辩护律师的职业伦理、改革诉讼构造以及完善证人保护制度等一系列制度.     

关于被追诉人是否享有阅卷权问题的研究

在刑事诉讼中围绕被追诉人或者其近亲属能否享有阅卷权的问题一直存在很大的争议,它关系到辩护权在刑事诉讼中的制度保障和实现方式,也和我们的检察工作关系密切。我们处进行接待工作时经常要面对前来咨询案情的当事人或其亲属,其中就有人曾经问过为什么只有律师才能阅卷,我们很难给出明确的答复,也有律师想要嫌疑人家属辅助其阅卷,同样会被我们拒绝。这篇文章,将阐述学术界和司法界关于被追诉人是否应该享有阅卷权的两种观点,同时比较国外关于被追诉人阅卷权的司法实践,并根据以上提出一些自己的见解。     

辩护律师阅卷的权利和义务

阅卷,即查阅案件的卷宗材料,是律师参与刑事诉讼活动的一项重要工作,也是律师帮助被告人行使辩护权,进行辩护工作的重要环节。因此,在刑事诉讼中保证律师阅卷权利和义务的实现,有重要的意义。根据我国刑事诉讼法、律师暂行条例的有关规定和司法解释,辩护律师阅卷的权利和义务有:第一,律师可以查阅除审判委员会和合议庭记录以外的全部材料。第二,律师阅卷,人民法院应当支持,应当提供律师阅卷的场所。第三,律师可     

试论我国辩护律师阅卷权的立法完善

辩护律师阅卷具有重要的意义,当前我国的辩护律师阅卷权制度还很不完善。本文指出在保障辩护律师案件知悉权的模式上,与证据开示制度相比,辩护律师阅卷是可行的制度选择,我国辩护律师阅卷制度的完善应当赋予辩护律师在诉讼的各个阶段均享有阅卷权,扩大阅卷的范围,并建立相关的保障机制。     

认罪认罚从宽制度中的值班律师——现状考察、制度局限以及法律帮助全覆盖

值班律师制度的引入无疑是我国刑事法律援助事业的一大进步,一定程度上解决了认罪认罚从宽案件中"有人帮助"的问题,但距"有效帮助"尚有一定距离。值班律师不仅参与率比较低,而且在保障被追诉人认罪认罚自愿性和真实性方面并未发挥实质性作用,尤其是存在着"选择性"提供法律帮助以及为认罪认罚进行"背书"等问题,这与我国制度设计中对值班律师的职能及其权利配置不无关系。值班律师主要提供一种初步、即时的程序性法律帮助,具有普惠性、应急性的特点,由此决定了其所固有的局限性,即难以提供较为深入的全程辩护。当前值班律师功能的发挥关键在于"扬长避短"、实现法律帮助全覆盖,这是值班律师有别于辩护律师的制度优势所在。在推进刑事案件律师辩护全覆盖试点中,需要从制度和实践层面明确两个"不得放弃":一是为认罪认罚的被追诉人提供法律帮助作为国家的一项义务,不得放弃;二是认罪认罚的被追诉人获得值班律师法律帮助的权利不得放弃,以此避免公安司法机关利用信息不对称及其资源优势,采用不正当手段获得虚假认罪或者不公正认罚之情形发生。     

卷宗阅览与证据展示之选择——兼论辩护俸师阅卷权的完善

律师只有全面、详细地了解案情,才能更有效地履行辩护或代理的职责,维护委托人的合法权益,因此各国法律都规定律师有权查阅案卷材料。但我国有关律师的阅卷权的规定与国际准则中的规定尚有差距。尤其辩护律师在办理刑事案件的过程中的阅卷问题尤为突出,律师在不了解案情的基础上,无法进行卓有成效的辩护。一、辩护律师全面阅卷的必要性(一)阅卷权是律师有效辩护的基础阅卷权是律师行使辩护权的充分的保障,如果限制律师甚至不让律师阅卷,那么“巧妇也难为无米之炊”。阅卷权之所以重要一方面侦诉方收集的证据构成案件事实的主要的基础,另一方…     

论被告人的阅卷权

新刑诉法首次授予辩护律师向在押嫌疑人、被告人"核实有关证据"的权利。"有关证据"既包括律师自行调查得来的证据材料,也包括律师通过阅卷所掌握的控方证据。对于嫌疑人、被告人通过律师的核实证据活动所获得的查阅控方证据的权利,我们可以称之为"被告人的阅卷权"。这一立法进展也打破了一项惯例,使得原来那种将阅卷权     

“律师在场权”，我们离你有多远

“律师在场权”，任何一位熟悉国外及香港影视的人可能对此并不陌生。它是指刑事案件的被追诉人在刑事诉讼过程中面对国家追诉人员审讯时，享有由律师在场陪同的权利。狭义而言，它是仅指在侦查阶段，侦查人员对犯罪嫌疑人进行讯问时，犯罪嫌疑人有权要求其辩护律师在场提供法律帮助，辩护律师根据当事人的要求有权     

论辩护律师在场权的确立

辩护律师在场权是基于辩护律师在刑事诉讼中独立的主体地位所拥有的独立权利.辩护律师在场权的实行可以使辩护律师及时介入刑事诉讼,为被追诉人提供法律帮助,有效地监督追诉权的行使,保障被追诉人人权.辩护律师在场权有利于实现实体正义和程序正义,节约诉讼成本和提高诉讼效率,推动我国侦查讯问方式的改革,完善我国刑事辩护制度.在中国律师在场权制度的具体设计中,应当确立以下内容:律师在场权的案件适用范围;律师在场权的具体行使方式;律师在讯问中的权利和义务;律师在场权的一系列权利保障制度、相关配套措施、具体操作流程和技术规范等.     

辩护律师诉讼权利保障的法治困境简

辩护律师的诉讼权利是辩护制度的重要内容,也是辩护律师顺利开展辩护活动的基础和保障。辩护律师的诉讼权利的完善与否,实际享有与否直接关系到被追诉人人权能够得到实现。我国辩护制度经历了从无到有,从缺漏到逐渐完善的过程。2012年《刑事诉讼法》对辩护律师的诉讼权利进行了＂三完善,三增加＂,即完善了会见权、阅卷权和调查取证权,增加了保密权、申诉控告权和进行辩护的权利。     

Privacy and intra-familiy communication of genetic information.

The new knowledge (and predictions) created by DNA tests and the family nature of genetic information has already lead to a new problem: the intra-familiar communication of genetic data. This raises questions such as the following. Is there a duty to inform in cases when treatment is possible and the patient does not permit disclosure of genetic results to relatives? Is there an obligation to warn or merely an authorization (that could be used or not)? Could privacy protection be maintain as an individual interest but with some justified violations? A balance needs to be establishes between the interest of privacy and the need to disclose secret information.     

论被追诉人本人的阅卷权

刑事诉讼中被追诉人本人能否行使阅卷权,因关系"发现真实"与"被告作为程序主体"之间的冲突,而争议较大。目前向被追诉人本人开放一定程度的阅卷已成为现代法治发达国家刑事诉讼法的调整方向,我国在"固有权"理论下全面禁止被追诉人本人阅卷的立法与实务值得检讨。被追诉人作为程序主体,应享有阅卷权,尤其是对无辩护人的被追诉人,应赋予其本人直接阅卷的权利。但阅卷权对被追诉人开放所可能带来的制度风险,仍是不可忽视,因此,基于利益的权衡,应根据案件的具体情况对被追诉人本人的阅卷权进行合理限制。     

To Disclose or not to Disclose? That is the Question in Collaborative Law

Collaborative Law (CL) is a dispute resolution process increasingly used in family law and divorce designed to encourage problem solving negotiations by parties represented by counsel. Many states have adapted legislation to authorize and facilitate CL and thousands of lawyers have been trained in the CL process. CL lawyers and participants sign a Participation Agreement in which they agree that the lawyers will be disqualified if the CL process terminates without settlement. They also promise full and voluntary disclosure of information. The extent of the obligation of disclosure is, however, unclear. Through analysis of an extended hypothetical divorce settlement negotiation, this article advocates that CL lawyers and clients should assume an obligation to disclose material facts without a request from the other side. Traditional legal ethics, based on an adversarial framework, requires only disclosure of information when requested by another party. In addition, in traditional legal ethics, a lawyer cannot disclose information obtained in the course of the lawyer‐client relationship without the client's consent even if material to the negotiation. Some authority regulating CL, however, suggests that CL participants and counsel should disclose material information without a specific request even if a client does not want the information disclosed. In that situation, the CL lawyer should encourage the client to disclose the information but if the client refuses to do so, withdraw from the representation. This Article reviews the arguments for and against an obligation of affirmative disclosure in CL. It suggests that affirmative disclosure obligations should be the subject of discussion between CL participants and lawyers and that CL Participation Agreements should be drafted to establish a clear obligation. Finally, this article identifies key areas for further discussion and research on CL disclosure obligations.     

核准追诉低龄未成年人刑事责任的程序定位及其重要展开

从程序上看,核准追诉低龄未成年人刑事责任的行为属于侦查程序的行为,而不是立案程序或审查起诉程序的行为。因而报请核准追诉的时间应当分为两种情况:一是在需要逮捕被追诉人的案件中,侦查机关应当在提请批准逮捕的同时报请核准追诉;二是在无需逮捕被追诉人的案件中,侦查机关在确定查明的事实与收集的证据符合核准追诉条件时,就应当立即报请核准追诉。根据这种程序定位,在核准追诉的证据方面,应当根据我国《刑法》第17条第3款规定的实体法事实确定证明对象,根据审查批捕标准确定核准追诉的证明标准;在核准追诉的当事人参与权与救济权方面,应当听取未成年犯罪嫌疑人及其辩护律师的意见,还应当听取被害人及其近亲属的意见,被害人及其近亲属不服不予核准追诉决定的,不可提起自诉,但可以申请复议一次。     

回归法律规范:刑事值班律师制度适用问题再反思

目前我国刑事值班律师制度规范背后折射出有权机关抑制辩方权利的倾向。根据法律规范意旨,只要被追诉人没有辩护人,国家就应“强制指派”值班律师介入案件。将“约见”解读为国家指派值班律师需以被追诉人申请为前提,这混淆了律师会见与介入案件的关系,且将国家责任转嫁给个人,弱化了对被追诉人获得最低限度法律援助权利的保障。相关规范性文件将值班律师阅卷权能限定为“查阅”,但基于法律援助法第37条的文义、控辩平等之程序公正底线要求等因素,值班律师阅卷权能还应包括“摘抄”“复制”。《法律援助值班律师工作办法》第10条第2款规定,值班律师有量刑异议时,只要其认可犯罪嫌疑人认罪认罚的自愿性,就应在具结书上签字。这是对值班律师功能“见证化”的公开宣示,与2018年刑事诉讼法第201条的意旨以及值班律师实质性参与量刑协商的改革要求相矛盾。值班律师应被赋予拒绝签字的权利。“实质性参与”应是目前完善值班律师制度的基本方向。     

侦查阶段律师辩护问题研究——兼论修订后的《律师法》实施问题

律师辩护从审判阶段延伸到侦查阶段是历史的发展趋势。侦查阶段犯罪嫌疑人委托的律师身份应定位为辩护人,辩护内容包括实体性辩护和程序性辩护两个方面。其诉讼权利的配置应当考量收集证据、查获犯罪嫌疑人与人权保障之间的冲突和平衡。我国当前不仅应明确修订后《律师法》的效力,而且还要对侦查阶段律师会见权、通信权、调查取证权、申请调查取证权、讯问时在场权等规定作出相应的调整或改革。     

我国刑事误判问题透视——以20起震惊全国的刑事冤案为样本的分析

近年,我国媒体披露了一系列震惊全国的刑事冤案,这些冤案在罪刑分布、被告人的社会构成、律师辩护、侦破方式、空间分布以及得以纠正的原因方面都呈现出惊人的规律性。导致冤案出现的原因非常复杂,刑讯逼供、违法取证、忽视科技手段的运用、对无罪证据视而不见、轻视律师辩护、有罪推定是导致冤案出现的最主要原因。冤案所反映的片面追求破案率、检察机关和法院办案时难以保持独立、对案件的处理过分迁就社会舆论和被害人压力、公检法三机关过分重视相互配合而轻视相互制约、司法经费不足、对错案责任的规定过于严格等问题值得深刻反思和检讨。     

论辩方对有利于被告人证据的阅卷权

2012年《刑事诉讼法》关于辩方阅卷范围的规定引发了关于控方是否有义务将其掌握的全部证据,尤其是有利于被告人证据提交给辩方问题的讨论。鉴于控方在证据获取中的绝对优势地位,从维持控辩平等、实现有效辩护、维系检察官客观义务、探求实体真实的角度出发,由辩方掌握全面阅卷权有其理论正当性,而不同法系国家中辩方从控方获取有利于被告人信息的比较法考察也印证了这一判断,目前关键在于如何通过制度设计保障辩方这一阅卷权的实现,其他国家的制度设计可以给我们一些启示。     

Diagnostic values of polysomnography in forensic medicine

A man accused of a first-degree murder of a two-year-old girl claimed that he had not been conscious during the time of the alleged murder. The possibility that he may have committed the crime while "sleepwalking" was raised. The forensic psychiatrist looked to the sleep disorders facility to conduct polysomnographic investigation of the accused in order to investigate the possibility that he had a parasomnia. Overnight sleep recordings with video surveillance carried out for two consecutive nights showed no evidence of parasomnia. On the basis of the full assessment, the final report of the forensic psychiatrist did not support a legal defense of non-insane automatism and "sleepwalking" was withdrawn as a possible defense by the lawyer of the accused.     

Debate over the concept of the competent lawyer in Japan “What skills and attitudes does Japanese society expect from lawyers?”

It has been 2 years since legal education reform started in Japan. The Justice System Reform Council envisioned the 21st century lawyer as a lawyer who “not only has highly developed professional legal knowledge but also has acquired strong legal ethics based on wide cultural knowledge and rich humanity” (Recommendations of the Justice System Reform Council—For a Justice System to Support Japan in the 21st Century—(June 21, 2001)). Since then, all interested parties have been trying to specify the qualifications needed to be a competent lawyer: What lawyering skills and professional attitudes does Japanese society expect from lawyers; how can they be acquired; and how can they be examined or evaluated? In this paper, I first briefly describe the traditional legal training system and the traditional image of the lawyer in Japan. Second, I look at the history of legal training system reform; summarize images of the lawyer each that interested party envisions, and review the current status of the reform. Then, I explore the optimum way to reinforce the quality and quantity of the legal profession in Japan.