对抗秘密取证:对质权属性及范围重述

就对质权的理论定位而言,学界一直莫衷一是:有功利主义视角下的工具论,亦有自由主义视角下的权利论,还有混合了两种主义的有限权利论。对于对质权应该坚持较为宽泛意义上的权利论,其首先应作为一项权利而存在,其次才是追求其他价值,例如发现真实。进而,对质权之于当事人应侧重程序性而非实体性保障。相应地,对质权的调整范围也应当作广义解释,即可以调整全部庭外陈述。当然,调整范围上的平等对待,并不意味着调整程度上的一视同仁。对质权的核心在于防止追诉方滥权,因此对属于证词性陈述(testimonial statements)应当由最为严厉的对质规则调整。对于非证词性庭外陈述,检察官可以在满足证人“无法寻获”的前提下,引入未经对质但可采的庭外陈述。

Against Secret Investigation: Restatement of the Nature and Scope of Right of Confrontation

The academic community has been having various views on the theoretical positioning of right of confrontation,which are instrumentalism from the perspective of utilitarianism,rights theory from the perspective of liberalism,and limited rights theory mixed with two kinds of above doctrines.Regarding the right of confrontation,a broader sense of rights theory should be adhered to.It should first exist as a right,and secondly is to pursue other values,such as discovering the truth.Furthermore,the parties to the the right of confrontation should focus on procedural rather than substantive protection.Correspondingly,the adjustment scope of the right of confrontation should also be interpreted broadly,that is,all out-of-court statements should be included.Certainly,equal treatment in the scope of adjustment does not mean equal treatment in the degree of adjustment.The core of the right of confrontation is to prevent the prosecution party from abusing of power,hence the testimonial statements should be subject to the strictest adjustments to the confrontation rules.For non-testimonial out-of-court statements,the prosecutor may introduce out-of-court statements that is without confrontation but admissible on the premise that the witness is“unable to be found”.