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.     

辩护人的诉讼地位与证据开示

辩护人的诉讼地位在我国刑事诉讼法中规定得不明确，在理论上认识不一致。这个问题的关键在于辩护律师在刑事诉讼中是否是诉讼主体。传统大陆法系理论认为刑事诉讼主体是公诉人或者自诉人，被告人和法院，这是比较狭义的诉讼主体理论，排除了侦查机关、被害人、辩护人以及诉讼代理人的主体地位。我个人认为将辩护人定位为诉讼主体比较合适，理由如下：l、在我国辩护人是受犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的委托或法院的指定参加诉讼活动的，但是，一旦辩护人参加诉讼，就有其独立的诉讼地位，是依据自己对案件事实和适用法律的认识展开辩护活动的，而非依据被告人的意志进行的，辩护人并非是单纯为被告人服务的人员。     

辩护律师进入刑事诉讼的最佳时间

《刑事诉讼法》第96条规定,从侦查阶段的第一次讯问犯罪嫌疑人或者采取强制措施之日起,律师可以为犯罪嫌疑人提供法律帮助。但因立法的保守与瑕疵,导致律师在刑事诉讼侦查阶段中诉讼地位不明,名份不清,此时还不能称为辩护律师,不能履行辩护律师的职能,致使律师在刑事诉讼侦查阶段不能发挥辩护律师的作用,犯罪嫌疑     

辩护律师在刑事诉讼中的地位

一、引言辩护律师的诉讼地位问题是刑事诉讼法学中的一个重大理论问题，也是目前在我国刑事司法制度走向科学化和民主化进程中亟待解决的实践问题。从理论界的研究现状来看，辩护律师提前介入刑事诉讼、建立法律援助等问题一直引起学者的重视，并在这次刑事诉讼法修改中得到了解决。但是，辩护律师参与刑事诉讼活动时应处于什么样的诉讼地位？他与追诉一方、审判官及其委托人──犯罪嫌疑人、被告人究竟存在什么样的关系？如何建立相应的律师职业伦理规范？……这些问题并没有引起学者们的广泛关注，出没能在理论上得到较好的解决。从立法的…     

论修订后刑诉法下侦查阶段辩护律师的角色与地位

刑事诉讼的历史就是辩护权不断扩大的历史。辩护权发展的核心在于辩护人介入刑事诉讼程度的不断深入以及辩护权的不断完善。公安机关需要正确理解辩护律师在侦查阶段的辩护人法律地位及会见通信权、讯问在场权、调查取证权等诉讼权利。辩护律师在侦查阶段主要是帮助犯罪嫌疑人行使辩护权并监督制约侦查机关的活动,维护犯罪嫌疑人人权的重要作用。     

理性探讨 友善交锋——司法公正与律师辩护国际研讨会综述

代表们普遍认为辩护律师的角色定位是刑事辩护制度的根本问题，关系到诉讼模式的构建和辩护律师具体诉讼权利的设置，如果不能科学地对辩护律师的角色进行定位，结果必然是对辩护律师权利的限制。但对于如何定位，代表们意见不一。有人认为，刑事诉讼意味着控辩审的三方结构，其中辩护律师应当成为独立的诉讼主体，在诉讼中独立于侦查机关、公诉机关和审判机关，尤其要独立于他的当事人，即犯罪嫌疑人和被告人。     

关于庭审改革的几点思考

在我国现行的刑事诉讼制度中，公诉人的诉讼地位明显优于被告人，双方并不是处于平等地位的当事人；刑事诉讼不实行直接言词原则，也不采取起诉书一本主义，提起公诉的案件，检察院要将案卷材料、证据移送法院；辩护律师不享有实行辩论式诉讼的西方国家律师那样广泛的诉讼权利。所有这些都表明，我国不具备实行辩论式诉讼的条件。因而现时不宜推行辩论式诉讼。     

《刑法》第306条存废之我见——基于辩护律师的视角

从本质上看,辩护律师的诉讼权利是犯罪嫌疑人和被告人辩护权的延伸,其最终目的是更好地保护被追诉人的合法权益.但是,1997年《刑法》增设的第306条,使得律师在刑事诉讼过程中很难充分行使自己的诉讼权利,案件很难得到充分的辩论与质证.这一立法设置不仅使我国律师的社会公众形象产生消极的影响;而且对我国刑事诉讼结构的控辩对抗性造成一定的破坏.《刑法》第306条把辩护律师处于不公平的诉讼地位,不符合我国的刑事诉讼程序正义和法治精神.     

被害人独立诉讼主体地位的回归

原始的刑事自诉模式下,被害人为刑事诉讼的主体之一。但在漫长的中世纪,被害人陷入证人的境地,国家成为唯一的诉讼主体。当代,虽然被害人普遍地被当作刑事诉讼的当事人,但是并不具有独立的诉讼主体地位,所以传统的刑事诉讼结构一直没有被害人的一席之地。现代刑事诉讼制度应当恢复刑事被害人的诉讼主体地位,并设计相应的制度充分保障刑事被害人诉讼主体地位的实现。     

体制内的代言人——辩护律师诉讼角色再认识

刑事辩护制度是现代刑事诉讼的一项基本法律制度，它是现代刑事诉讼对诉讼正义追求的结果。而作为刑事辩护制度的主要实践者及支撑者，辩护律师的诉讼角色究竟是被告人的类似于民事代理性质的“代言人”，还是独立于被告人的社会主义法律工作者，似乎不容争议。传统观点从辩护律师忠诚于法律及社会主义的角度论证，高度强调辩护律师的社会责任及法律独立地位，并赋予其与法官、检察官一致的实现社会正义的职业使命。     

论辩护律师的法庭地位——以律师与法官的关系为视角

有关辩护律师法庭地位的理论学说,大体可归纳为辩护人系司法机关、辩护人系当事人的利益代理人和辩护人系限制的司法机关三种类型。我国对辩护律师法庭地位认识的变化,总体上经历了从司法机关理论到当事人利益代理人理论的转变过程。综合考虑我国对律师的管理及定位、我国刑事司法对实体真实主义的追求、刑事审判模式的职权主义传统及未来的改革走向等因素,我国刑事审判程序中辩护人的地位宜建立在限制的司法机关之理论基础上。     

Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial: A Systemic Look Under the Hood: Reasonable Accommodations

Juvenile competency to stand trial has historically involved the intrinsic abilities of a juvenile to understand and appreciate the nature of the proceeding against the juvenile and the juvenile’s ability to assist in his/her defense and communicate effectively with defense counsel. The literature has not addressed the recursive systemic competency process between the juvenile, defense counsel, and hearing officer. This article discusses the communication skills of defense counsel and hearing officers as part of the systemic equation in a juvenile’s competency to stand trial. A case example is used to demonstrate the importance of reasonable accommodations as part of the systemic, recursive interactions between a juvenile and court personnel. The authors conclude with recommendations for training in the areas of linguistics and the psychosocial development of juveniles in the socio-cultural context in which they live.     

Meeting the Mandates of Gault: Automatic Appointment of Counsel in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court ruled that children facing delinquency charges have a constitutional right to defense counsel. Despite that mandate, state assessments of juvenile defense systems have consistently found high rates of waiver of counsel. Children are facing harsh punishments with potentially lifelong consequences without the benefit of a trained defense attorney at their side. Given the severity of the consequences of juvenile court involvement and society’s understanding of the developmental science behind adolescence, this article argues that to meet constitutional requirements, juvenile courts must automatically appoint defense counsel for all children facing delinquency charges.     

美国无效辩护制度及其启示

无效辩护制度是有效辩护制度良好运行的必要保障。通过对美国无效辩护制度的考察，可以看到，无效辩护制度在一定程度上提高了刑事辩护的质量。我国辩护制度运行状况堪忧，委托辩护质量不高，指定辩护在司法实践中流于形式。就目前情况看，在所有案件中借鉴无效辩护制度的时机还不成熟，而率先在死刑案件的审判过程中，将无效辩护制度应用于委托辩护与指定辩护，不仅可行，而且紧急。但是，因为司法传统以及刑事诉讼制度的差异，对于无效辩护的判断标准、证明责任、救济程序、律师责任的承担等，我国应采取不同于美国的思路。     

美国刑事无效辩护制度及其对我国的借鉴

美国不仅有世界上最严密的刑事诉讼规则,还有非常完备的辩护律师制度。其中,刑事诉讼中的无效辩护规则是被告人获得律师帮助最有力的救济措施。美国最高法院确立的无效辩护标准包括形式标准和实质标准。基于提高刑事辩护的质量,确保刑事被指控人的辩护权的真正实现,我国应当借鉴美国的无效辩护制度,从立法和司法上进一步完善刑事诉讼法律制度、律师刑事辩护规则和律师职业伦理规则等。     

辩护律师证据知悉权独立化研究——以与控方卷证移送关系为视角

无论是英美“起诉状一本主义”还是意大利“法官卷宗”移送制度,都对辩护律师证据知悉权的实现不起决定性作用。在我国司法实践中,辩护律师的证据知悉权因完全依赖于控方卷证移送而受到“主要证据复印件移送主义”的压制。辩护律师证据知悉权只有摆脱控方卷证移送方式的绝对控制,获得自身的独立性,才有可能最大限度地得到实现。     

Public versus private defense: Can money buy justice?

With the expansion of the right to legal counsel and the state's need to provide legal counsel, public defenders came to be viewed with suspicion and mistrust. The widely shared image by the public was that lawyers who became public defenders were those unable to succeed in the private sector. Very few studies had examined the legal outcome and efficiency of public versus private legal defense. The purpose of the current study was to examine the extent to which a private or public defense affects the outcome of the legal process in Israel.     

The right to counsel in juvenile court

Research Summary The U.S. Supreme Court in In re Gault granted delinquents the right to counsel in juvenile courts. Decades after Gault, efforts to provide adequate defense representation in juvenile courts have failed in most states. Moreover, juvenile justice administration varies with structural context and produces justice-by-geography. In 1995, Minnesota enacted juvenile law reforms, which include mandatory appointment of counsel. This pre- and post-reform legal impact study compares how juvenile courts processed youths before and after the statutory changes. We assess how legal changes affected the delivery of defense services and how implementation varied with urban, suburban, and rural context. Policy Implications We report inconsistent judicial compliance with the mandate to appoint counsel. Despite unambiguous legislative intent, rates of representation improved for only one category of offenders. However, we find a positive reduction in justice by geography, especially in rural courts. Given judicial resistance to procedural reforms, states must find additional strategies to provide counsel in juvenile courts.     

A Comparison of Retained and Appointed Counsel in Cases of Capital Murder

We examined the role of counsel as a source of arbitrary and capricious sentencing in cases of capital murder. The method is a reanalysis of the data of Baldus, Woodworth, & Pulaski (1990) on 606 cases of capital murder in Georgia in the 1970s. Controlling for variables describing the character of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime, a death sentence was more likely when defense counsel was appointed rather than retained privately. This was a consequence primarily of the prosecutor's decision to seek a death sentence rather than jury bias in sentencing. Our data support the conclusion that sentencing under the Georgia statute was in the 1970s, and is today to some degree, arbitrary and capricious.     

The Right to Representation by Criminal Defense Counsel in Ethiopia: A Critical Analysis

This paper explores and critically reflects on the legal foundations and the practice of criminal defense in Ethiopia within the overall due process framework of a fair criminal trial. A brief review of Ethiopian constitutional history shows that the right to representation by legal counsel has been one of the fundamental due process rights granted to accused persons in criminal proceedings. The constitutional right to counsel is, however, not specified by detailed legal provisions. A logical consequence of this is that the enjoyment of this right is fraught with legal and practical problems. While the legal problems, among other things, include obscurity regarding the scope and content of the right, the practical problems include absence of public defense offices at district levels where the vast majority of criminal proceedings take place. Consequently, accused persons appear during trials without the aid of legal counsel; they are in fact deprived of their due process rights and marginalized. This has a number of legal ramifications both to the accused and the criminal justice system. In sum, the constitutional provision of the right to criminal defense counsel is undelivered and remains a hollow promise. It is therefore difficult to uphold the constitutional norms which underlie criminal trial process such as procedural justice, as well as the legitimacy of the government. The justice sectors are responsible to ensuring due process and equal protection. Substantial justice reforms are needed at all levels.