“直接证据”的迷思

将直接证据与间接证据等区别开来,强调前者的重要性和优越性,是一种流布甚久的普遍观念。能否进行这种区分、如何区分以及这种区分是否具有规范意义等问题,在近年来也受到了理论研究的关注。从诉讼证明的认知构造来看,"直接证据"的界说应当区分严格的理解和日常习惯的理解;无论哪一种界说,都没有多少实际的规范意义。比较而言,关于直接证据的诸种传统界说多是有问题的;近年来的论争,无论是何种论说,都未能促进人们更好地理解此方面的问题。应当放弃在日常习惯理解意义上界分直接证据与间接证据等的视角来制定相关证据规则的努力,注重对前者的证明力进行审查。

The Myth of“Direct Evidence”

Differentiating direct evidence and circumstantial evidence so as to show the significance and superiority of the former has been a wide-spread idea.However,whether the two can be differentiated,how can they be differentiated,and if the differentiation has normative significance have also been hot debated issues in recent years.From the angle of cognitive structure of legal proof,the definition of“direct evidence”should be divided into strict interpretation and daily habitual interpretation,but neither has much normative significance.The traditional definitions of direct evidence are mostly problematic,and the theoretical arguments on this topic in recent years don't help much in understanding this issue.We should stop the effort in making evidentiary rules based on the daily habitual differentiation of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence,and focus more on the examination of the probative value of the former.