完善我国民事诉讼证据失权制度的几点思考和建议

最高人民法院于2001年12月制定了《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定X以下简称《证据规定》）并于2002年4月1日开始实施。《证据规定》的颁布实施是证据失权制度的一个成果，我国的证据失权经历了法定顺序主义一随时提出主义一适时提出主义这样一个否定之否定的发展演化的过程，我国采取的是适时提出主义。举证时限最关键的地方就是证据失权．证据失权维护了当事人的举证平等。虽然《证据制度》使我国从证据的随时提出主义转变为适时提出主义，但是在实施中还是存在很多的问题和阻力．是值得我们深思和研究的。     

证据随时提出主义评析

在民事诉讼中，当事人提出证据是否应受诉讼阶段划分的限制，对此，各国在立法上和理论上有两种调然不同的做法与见解：证据随时提出主义和证据适时提出主义。就中国情况而言，我们在立法和理论上均选择了证据随时提出主义。然而，这种措施的利弊究竟如何，很值得深入探讨。一、证据随时提出主义：含义和法理基础所谓证据随时提出主义，是指民事诉讼当事人可以不受法定诉讼阶段划分的限制，随时向法院提交有关证明案件真实情况的证据。证据随时提出主义在现行民诉法中的最典型表现为第125条第1款，即“当事人在法庭上可以提出新证据”。具体…     

析界定与适用新的证据

在民事证据提出时间的问题上，最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》（以下简称《证据规定》）的最大贡献在于确立了举证时限制度。该规定对适用证据适时提出主义的例外“新的证据”也作出了明确规定。本文拟就证据适时提出主义与新的证据之间的内在价值联系，以及司法实践中认定和适用新的证据所面临的问题，谈些自己的拙见。一、新的证据之价值分析在诉讼活动中，证据是决定案件胜诉与否的关键所在。而在证据的提供方面，存在两种不同的立法模式。一种是证据随时提出主义，一种是证据适时提出主义。所谓证据随时提出主义，是指当事…     

民事证据随时提出、同时提出抑或适时提出——兼评《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法修正案(草案)》第65条

在法定顺序主义下,主张已经固定,有完善系统的审前程序,实行证据同时提出主义和逾期失权制度则有其合理基础。在自由顺序主义中,无审前程序固定主张和争点,则只能实行证据随时提出主义,但证据随时提出主义无法集中审理和诉讼拖延的弊端决定着其让位于增设审前程序后的证据适时提出主义。不像美国的证据开示制度,我国民事诉讼法不能随意证据失权,只能实行相对温和的证据适时提出主义,但也需相应完善审前程序。     

日本《刑事证据法》值得借鉴

日本《刑事证据法》涵盖的基本理念1、当事人、证据裁判及自由心证在日本《刑事证据法》中,颇具特色的是当事人主义、证据裁判主义及自由心证主义,三者贯穿于刑事诉讼的全过程。它以当事人为中心,证据为起点,至自由心证得出判裁而告终。当事人主义亦称“辩论主义”,是英美法系刑事诉讼理论原则之一。它是指诉讼程序采取双方当事人对抗的方式。诉讼的进行、证据的提出和调查,均以当事人为主,法官只起公断人的作用。于是,在侦查过程中,犯罪嫌疑人享有沉默权、与律师接见往来权和证据保全请求权。而限制犯罪嫌疑人的人身自由及搜查、扣押均须依…     

巨额财产来源不明罪案件应限定被告人的举证期限

我国刑事诉讼法没有关于被告人举证期限的规定,以致被告人不论在案件侦查过程中,诉讼进行中,还是在诉讼终结后,都有权随时提出证据。这种被告人可以随时提出证据的方式,被称为证据随时提出主义。实行证据随时提出主义原本是大陆法系国家的传统及特征,由于证据随时提出主义所产生的弊端,在大陆法系国家,证据随时提出主义已被证据适时提出主义所取代。 允许被告人随时提出证据,从追求案件客观真实的目的而言,具有合理性。但片面强调客观真实,允许被告人无限期提出     

自由心证的类型化分析

作为对法定证据制度之辩证否定的自由心证制度，其根本要求是法律对证明力不做具体规定．而交由裁判者自主裁量。在证据能力方面两大法系采取了各不相同的做法，其中英美法系采取的是证明力的自由评价与证据能力的法定主义．大陆法系国家和地区对证据能力和证明力均采取自由评价制度。两大法系在证据能力方面的不同态度。使自由心证表现为两种不同的类型。受诉讼价值目标、审判组织结构等方面的影响．我国自由心证的技术建构应当选择大陆法系的立法模式。     

直接言词原则与证据辩论主义──《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》主要问题透视之二

一、直接言词原则与证据辩论主义之意旨　　坚持证据裁判主义是当今诉讼活动的正当程序价值取向之使然，从证据法意义上，坚持证据裁判主义必须与证据辩论主义相结合，这样既有利于使法官保持中立地位，又有利于法官兼听则明，同时又为当事人用尽其诉讼上的正当权利提供最大的可能。在诉讼中，只有贯彻直接言词原则，才能为庭审证据辩论主义提供必要的前提条件，并使证据辩论主义具有实质内涵。　　直接言词原则是西方资产阶级革命的一种历史产物，在西方君主专制时期，盛行的是一种纠问式诉讼，在这种审判模式下，法院在审理案件时，无须…     

浅论举证时效制度

在以公正和高效作为司法改革主旋律的今天,建立民事诉讼举证时效制度,以证据适时提出主义取代证据随时提出主义,日益成为民事诉讼理论界和司法实务界的一致呼声。     

略论行政诉讼证据交换制度及其完善

最高人民法院《关于行政诉讼证据若干问题的规定》第一次规定了行政诉讼中的证据交换制度。这是近几年来我国司法制度改革 ,尤其是行政诉讼制度进一步完善的重要成果。证据交换制度在改变行政诉讼中的“证据随时提出主义” ,进一步确立“证据适时提出主义” ;实现当事人的地位平等 ;提高行政诉讼效率 ;促进行政诉讼从现行的超职权主义模式向以当事人主义为主的模式转变等方面具有重要的意义。但是 ,现有的规定在交换的范围、交换的原则、交换的程序、交换的方式、交换的时间等方面 ,尚需进一步完善。     

辩论原则下的法官实质指挥诉讼与收集证据的义务

《证据规定》虽然在我国民事诉讼中植入了辩论原则,但同时也留下了合法性不足、转型不彻底、配套不完善等缺陷。未来通过法律修改确立的辩论主义应当是经过修正的辩论主义,而赋予法官实质指挥诉讼义务和依职权收集证据义务乃是修正辩论主义的重要方法。这两种方法有利于在辩论主义条件下查明事实真相和实现实体公正,从而有效克服辩论主义绝对化产生的弊端。     

把证据学打造成全人类的科学──三论实质证据观

事实是一切学科的对象。事实不是陈述、命题、描述和断定。事实是指客观外界存在或不存在、发生或未发生的全部情况和过程。事实可分为如下类型：一、静态事实和动态事实;二、积极事实和消极事实;三、自然事实和人为事实;四、历史事实和当前事实。事实有四大功能,即认识的基础、证明的根据、检验的标准、思想的指南。事实有两重属性：一为客观性;二为关联性。证据也有两重属性。证据的客观性指的还是事实的客观性,证据的关联性指的也还是事实的关联性。可见,事实就是证据。事实有四大功能,证据自然也有四大功能。证据不限于司法工作需要,全人类都需要。因此,要把证据学打造成全人类的科学。     

证据分类制度及其改革

我国证据分类制度有四个特点:一是具有某种形式主义倾向;二是构筑了封闭式的分类体系;三是倾向于细致具体的分类方式;四是类别设置有一定独特性。证据包含证据资料与证据方法,原生性与派生性的材料均可作为证据使用。改革证据分类制度,需要将“勘验、检查笔录”改为“侦查、审判笔录”,将“鉴定结论”改为“鉴定结论与鉴定人陈述”,同时将证人证言扩大解释为包括普通证人证言与专家证人证言两种类型。可以保留视听资料的分类,但仅指音像材料,而将计算机资料划出,分别归于有关的证据类型。     

Error and exaggeration in the presentation of the significance of a DNA match in criminal trials in Malaysia

DNA evidence is now widely used in criminal trials across jurisdictions, including Malaysia. One important issue to be considered is how the significance of a DNA match that uses statistical calculations should be presented and explained in a criminal trial. This article demonstrates how the presentation of the significance of a DNA match in criminal trials in Malaysia has been tainted with error, exaggeration and bias towards the prosecution case based on the reference to case law. It also provides recommendations in order to ensure that the significance of a DNA match is properly presented in the criminal trials in Malaysia.     

The Presumption of Innocence in the Trial Setting

The starting frame with which jurors begin trials and the approach which they should take toward the presentation of evidence by the prosecution and defense are distinguished. A robust interpretation of the starting frame, according to which jurors should begin trials by presuming the material innocence of defendants, is defended. Alternative starting frames which are less defendant‐friendly are shown to cohere less well with the notion that criminal trials should constitute stern tests of the government's case against those it has charged with crimes. The intuitive case for the robust presumption of innocence is supplemented with empirical evidence concerning the psychology of belief formation and preservation. Various objections to the proposed starting frame are addressed.     

Who needs fact when you’ve got narrative? The case of P,C&S vs United Kingdom

Legal arguments and judgements ostensibly rely for their credibility and persuasiveness on the presentation of factual claims and determination of facts through due process. While it should follow that proceedings that are undermined by disregard for facticity and due process should not appear credible or persuasive, in practice this is not always the case. In cases where narratives are not firmly underpinned by factuality and due process a series of narrative techniques and processes can be brought into play to enhance the persuasiveness and credibility of those narratives. These processes include the reliance on a narrative trajectory, the presentation of consensus, drawing on supportive discourses, the privileging of certain narrators and the smoothing over of contradictory evidence. This paper examines these processes in the case of P,C&S vs United Kingdom in which in the absence of fact and due process a local authority and the domestic courts in the UK constructed and confirmed a narrative of a dangerous mother.     

Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence

Mock jurors' use of probabilistic evidence was examined in a fractional factorial design manipulating 7 variables: strength of nonstatistical evidence; quantification of nonstatistical evidence; strength of statistical evidence; combination of 2 pieces of statistical evidence; instruction in use of Bayes' theorem; and presentation of fallacies (both prosecutor's and defense attorney's) concerning use of statistical evidence. One hundred eighty-nine subjects viewed 1 of 16 videotapes presenting a condensed mock trial. Subjects completed dependent measures after each of 4 witnesses and at the end of trial. The strength of both nonstatistical and probabilistic evidence affected verdicts; the other manipulations did not. Overall, subjects slightly underused the probabilistic evidence, as compared to their individualized Bayesian norms, and subjects did not succumb to fallacies. However, subjects greatly varied in over-or underutilization, even after Bayesian instruction. Future research should examine use of weak nonstatistical evidence, and should test different probabilistic instructions.     

Development of a new classificatory model of malingering

Inclusion criteria for the classification of malingering are shaped and largely predetermined by our explanatory theories. Current theories have postulated the motivation to malinger is either the product of underlying psychopathology (pathogenic model) or criminal backgrounds (DSM III-R model). I have proposed a third model that malingering is typically an adaptive response to adverse circumstances which may best be understood in the context of decision theory. Based on this approach I have argued that indices of malingering should be empirically derived and focused on clinical presentation. Finally, I have proposed a preliminary model for the classification of malingerers which combines clinical data with corroborative evidence.     

Alcohol‐Induced Blackout as a Criminal Defense or Mitigating Factor: An Evidence‐Based Review and Admissibility as Scientific Evidence

Alcohol‐related amnesia—alcohol blackout—is a common claim of criminal defendants. The generally held belief is that during an alcohol blackout, other cognitive functioning is severely impaired or absent. The presentation of alcohol blackout as scientific evidence in court requires that the science meets legal reliability standards (Frye, FRE702/Daubert). To determine whether “alcohol blackout” meets these standards, an evidence‐based analysis of published scientific studies was conducted. A total of 26 empirical studies were identified including nine in which an alcohol blackout was induced and directly observed. No objective or scientific method to verify the presence of an alcoholic blackout while it is occurring or to confirm its presence retrospectively was identified. Only short‐term memory is impaired and other cognitive functions—planning, attention, and social skills—are not impaired. Alcoholic blackouts would not appear to meet standards for scientific evidence and should not be admissible.     

Forensic archaeology.

This presentation attempts to demonstrate the value of the use of improved methods in the excavation of buried bodies involved in a criminal investigation. Care in the removal of the skeleton and proper recording will document the interrelationship of all objects found in and around the grave and can, to a certain extent, recreate the event. Carelessness will result in evidence being irretrievably lost. The crime scene investigator's problem, arachaeologically, includes the nature of the remains, dating the time of burial, and techniques of excavation. Archaeological recovery techniques should be adopted in homicide investigation involving buried bodies.