民事诉讼司法认知对象范围探讨

司法认知是世界上许多国家证据法上所普遍适用的就某些特定的案件事实由法官直接加以确认 ,从而免除当事人举证责任的一种诉讼规则。我国关于司法认知的立法与研究同外国相比差距较大 ,在民事诉讼中如何客观地界定司法认知的对象范围 ,尚需深入研究。笔者认为 ,民事诉讼司法认知对象有事实和法律两方面。事实范围包括众所周知的事实、司法事实、政府事实、易于获知的事实 ;法律范围包括本国法、国际条约和惯例、外国法。     

论被告人承担证明责任的不适用性

证明责任不同于举证负担。无罪推定原则、不被强迫自证其罪原则以及刑事诉讼结构的特点决定了被告人承担证明责任的不适用性。但被告人在一定情形下有举证负担。     

论电子证据

电子证据是存储于特殊介质上用于证明案件真实情况的数据信息。它不同于传统的任何一种证据形式 ,具有高度精确性、复合性、脆弱性的特征。从学理和比较法的角度出发 ,在对电子证据的证据能力和证明力进行深入分析的基础上 ,我国应将电子证据列为证据法中的独立的证据形式。     

论同案犯罪嫌疑人、被告人口供的证据价值

同案犯罪嫌疑人、被告人口供是否具有证据价值,我国法学界与司法实践中对此问题存在不同认识。无论是国外法律,还是我国刑诉法的相关理论,都肯定了其证据的价值在于:一、从定案的角度,只有同案人的口供,没有其它证据证实,不能认定被告人有罪;二、从补充证据的角度,同案被告人的口供在任何情意下都具有相应的价值。     

非法证据排除规则诉讼价值的冲突与抉择

非法证据排除规则应确立一个多元化的程序价值体系 ,在具备程序性价值和工具性价值的同时 ,还应尽可能地保证司法资源的合理配置。在不同诉讼价值之间发生冲突时 ,应不将实体真实作为刑事诉讼的唯一目标 ,也不再将“有罪必罚”作为刑事诉讼的最高目标 ,但同时应注意将排除规则对程序公正的追求和对当事人的权利的保护保持在一定限度之内。     

《唐人街》:海外华人世界的成功展现

进入新千年,凤凰卫视制作播出了大型电视纪录片<唐人街>,首次以纪录片形式透视了海外华人的生存境况,在艺术与市场上都取得了巨大成功.本文对<唐人街>独具特色的制作理念、信息内容、表现方式、传播途径作了全面分析.     

Evidence of Atrocities or Atrocious Use of Evidence: The Controversial Use of Atrocity Film at Nuremberg

This article focuses upon the utilisation of film evidence in criminal proceedings. It describes and evaluates the historical deployment of this type of material at War Crimes Trials, with particular emphasis upon the International Military Tribunal established at Nuremberg, in 1945, in the wake of the Second World War. During this Trial, the prosecution placed reliance upon the film, Nazi Concentration Camps, depicting with graphic realism the horrific barbarism of the Nazi regime. However, this was only made possible by the implementation of innovatory evidential procedures, effectively circumventing the hearsay rule. A comparison is drawn between this, and the current position in England and Wales, following the recent relaxation of the traditional embargo upon hearsay evidence. However, film evidence of the type adduced at Nuremberg may be more prejudicial than probative and should such circumstances arise, the interests of justice may not truly be served. Susan Twist is Senior Lecturer in Law at the Lancashire Law School, University of Central Lancashire. smtwist@uclan.ac.uk. The author was assisted in research for this article by the dissertation of Kellie Goggins.     

共犯被告人之间供述一致定案能力分析——兼析我国刑事诉讼法第四十六条

共犯被告人之间的供述相互印证,但无其他证据佐证能否定案是目前法学界与司法实践中的一个难点.从我国刑事诉讼法第46条的内涵人手,论证该条中的"被告人供述"仅指证明对象被告人本人的供述,共犯被告人供述是该条所说的"其他证据",符合补强证据的要求,共犯被告人供述相互印证的情形下能够定案,而且这也是各国的立法通例.     

关于转化型抢劫罪的适用条件

抢劫罪是侵犯财产犯罪中比较严重的犯罪,是刑法打击的重点。《刑法》第269条规定了一种比较特殊的转化型抢劫罪,即由盗窃、诈骗、抢夺行为转化为抢劫罪。文章对转化型抢劫罪成立的前提条件、客观条件和主观条件作了详细的论述,并且认为这三个条件同时具备才能成为转化型抢劫罪。     

Toward an Empirical Approach to Evidentiary Ruling

This paper responds to criticisms/misconstruals of our measure of the maximum probative value of evidence (D. Davis & W. C. Follette, 2002), and our conclusions regarding the potentially prejudicial role of intuitive profiling evidence, including motive. We argue that R. D. Friedman and R. C. Park's (2003) criticisms and example cases are largely based on inappropriate violation of the presumption of innocence. Further, we address the merits of our absolute difference measure of probative value versus those of the Bayesian likelihood ratio championed by D. H. Kaye and J. J. Koehler (2003). We recommend methods for presentation of measures of evidence utility that convey complexities of interdependence between new and existing evidence. Finally, we propose a probable cause standard for admission of potentially prejudicial evidence, dictating that admissibility of such evidence should be contingent upon other substantial evidence of guilt.