英美民事证据开示若干问题研析

作为实现司法正义的重要手段,英美的民事证据开示制度发挥了关键作用。从"形而上"的角度看,该制度背后最基本的理念是FairPlay精神。本文主要从微观角度对证据开示的一些具体制度,即开示的主体、对象、范围、时限要求、法定例外、有关专家证言是否开示、相关会议安排以及对滥用开示制度的法律制裁等进行研讨。证据开示制度内容丰富,程序严谨,有利于平等保护双方当事人的权益,值得我国学习和借鉴。     

证据开示制度比较研究──兼评我国民事审判实践中的证据开示

证据开示制度１９世纪始于英国,此后,受到各国重视。各国的证据开示制度都有各自的发展和完善历程。在具体的证据开示范围、方法及限制、制裁等方面也有所不同。我国在审判方式改革中,部分地区试行了庭前证据交换,但也存在不少问题,且有关诉讼体制、法制环境、诉讼观念等运行环境问题,尤其值得深思和研究。     

刑事证据开示制度的比较法研究

刑事证据开示制度源于英美法系,是当事人主义诉讼模式下一个十分重要的概念和制度。其目的是为了防止"证据突袭"、保障人权、确保审判程序的公平公正,提高诉讼效率。目前许多实行当事人主义诉讼模式的国家,均规定了较为完备的刑事诉讼证据开示制度。我国在新修改的刑事诉讼法中也增加了关于证据开示的相关规定。但有关证据开示制度的概念、渊源、价值和比较法研究方面仍很模糊。     

美国域外证据开示制度的利弊浅析

本文简要的介绍美国的域外证据开示程序起源范围以及方式。在肯定美国域外证据开示制度的优越性的同时,对美国域外证据存在的两点弊端进行了浅析。     

论我国刑事诉讼证据开示制度

刑事诉讼证据开示制度作为当事人主义或类当事人主义诉讼程序中的一个十分重要的概念和制度已经越来越广泛地受到我国学术界、司法界和立法机关的关注和认同。尽管我国的刑事诉讼法中也有类似于证据开示的制度,但与对抗制相配套的严格意义上的证据开示制度并没有建立。本文在概述证据开示制度基础之上,分析了我国刑事诉讼证据开示制度的现状及存在的问题,以期为完善我国刑事诉讼证据开示制度提出新的思路和设想。     

对我国刑事诉讼电子证据开示制度的法律思考

电子证据是信息时代的"证据之王",在现代刑事诉讼中发挥着越来越重要的作用。在我国民事诉讼中,已经规定了与证据开示制度相似的证据交换制度,而在刑事诉讼方面尚属空白,不仅不利于审判方式的转变,也不利于刑事诉讼价值的实现。因此,建立完善的电子证据开示制度,势在必行。     

对我国刑事诉讼电子证据开示制度的法律思考

电子证据是信息时代的“证据之王”，在现代刑事诉讼中发挥着越来越重要的作用。在我国民事诉讼中，已经规定了与证据开示制度相似的证据交换制度，而在刑事诉讼方面尚属空白，不仅不利于审判方式的转变，也不利于刑事诉讼价值的实现。因此，建立完善的电子证据开示制度，势在必行。     

对证据开示几个问题的思考

公诉案件证据开示是指人民检察院提起公诉的案件，在开庭审理前，按照平等、协商、公正的原则，由主诉检察官或由部门负责人主持，公诉方和辩护方相互出示各自的证据的庭前审查活动。目前而言，庭前证据开示仍处于尝试阶段，实践中也还有许多问题需要探索和研究。     

Compelled disclosure of research data

Voluntary data sharing among psychologists will minimize the need for courts to compel disclosure of research information. A review of recent federal court decisions indicates that disclosure of research data from other disciplines has been compelled by subpoena when the data are relevant to the central issue of the litigation and require independent verification. Voluntary sharing of data among psychologists will minimize the need for compelled disclosure by permitting independent verification of the methodology and findings. Professional organizations can assist by encouraging voluntary data sharing and by serving as neutral intermediaries to minimize disruption when disclosure is compelled.     

Initial evidence for the assimilation hypothesis

The assimilation hypothesis dictates that knowledge of prior evidence makes legal decision makers assign more weight to subsequent evidence. For example, the evidentiary power of a line-up identification is perceived to be stronger if the decision maker knows that the suspect has confessed, compared to when knowledge of the confession is absent. In three studies, the assimilation hypothesis was tested. As expected, knowledge of DNA-evidence inflated the estimated strength of subsequent eyewitness identification evidence (Study 1), and also inflated overall conviction and conviction rate (Study 2). A similar assimilation effect was found with knowledge of the suspect’s dangerous psychopathology (i.e. psychopathic and anti-social personality traits). Such knowledge inflated the estimated strength of fingerprint evidence. In conclusion, the assimilation effect is a threat to rational legal decision making in both lays (Study 2) and professional judges (Studies 1 and 3).     

严格责任论:以英美刑法为中心

刑法学界有观点认为,严格责任是结果责任、客观归罪的典型,应予彻底否定。刑事严格责任起源于英美法国家,我国《刑法》中并无这一概念。要对刑事严格责任进行评判,应当充分了解其存在的背景、内涵及其价值基础,否则,作出的结论往往是不尽妥当的。英美刑法中,严格责任的适用受到了种种条件的限制,不同于绝对责任,更非结果责任或者客观归罪,有其存在的价值基础。     

论英美证据法中的相关性

相关性是普通法证据制度中的一个重要概念和原则。在英美的证据法理论研究中,关于相关性的研究,主要围绕着一些关键词,如"实质性"与"相关性"、"逻辑相关性"与"法律相关性"等展开,并存在着认识上的分歧与冲突。本文试图对这些理论认识作出梳理,并进行初步的探讨。     

Giving the reasonable patient a voice: information disclosure and the relevance of empirical evidence

In England the standard of risk disclosure required of doctors to avoid liability in negligence is governed by the Bolam test. The test is determined by what would be accepted as reasonable by the responsible doctor. Although able to lay down an independent standard, the courts have usually been guided by the medical expert's evidence. The judge's duty to scrutinise expert evidence was reaffirmed by the recent House of Lords ruling in Bolitho v City and Hackney HA. In Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust, Lord Woolf MR confirmed that this also applied to risk disclosure. Brazier & Miola argue that Pearce effectively introduces the prudent patient standard into English law. This paper examines that claim and considers whether it is justified by the Pearce judgment. The implications of Pearce are explored and, given the appeal to the concept of a material risk, I discuss the relevance of empirical research to determining the standard of disclosure. Finally, a small piece of empirical work is presented as an illustration of the pros and cons of such an approach and as a possible springboard for future research.     

英美法系的历史转型

20世纪以来，英美法系处于剧魁的历史转型之中，为了配合从守夜人国家向福利国家转型而导致的国家统治方式发生的变化，现代社会对于司法效率的更高追求等国内社会环境的变化，英美法系的法律渊源、诉讼程序、法律分类等方面的基本特征发生了重大修正，表现出向大陆法系靠近的趋势。与此同时，法律全球化和区域化也促成了英美法系与大陆法系相互融合的历史新趋势。