刑事法官庭外证据调查权研究

发布时间：2018-02-20 22:11

本文关键词： 庭外证据调查实体真实程序正义价值平衡　出处：《山东大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：法官庭外证据调查权是对法官庭审中调查、核实证据职能的补充和延伸。现代刑事诉讼追求实体真实与程序正义两种诉讼价值的平衡。从实体真实角度出发,很多时候单纯依靠法庭审理并不足以使法官实现“案件事实清楚,证据确实、充分”的内心确认；而从程序正义的角度来看,在我国控辩力量相差悬殊、辩方取证能力受到限制的司法现状下,以法官庭外证据调查的方式给予被告人作适当的“取证帮助”,则是在实质上平衡了控辩双方的诉讼力量,是追求程序正义的一种表现。从应然的角度来评价法官的庭外证据调查权,其诉讼价值不可否定。然而,任何一种权力都具有扩张性,从“超职权主义模式”一路走来,我国刑事司法在向当事人主义改进的过程中始终无法摆脱法官职能过剩的倾向,法官庭外证据调查权也是如此,由于我国刑诉法对该项权力的规定不甚完善,加之法官在司法实践中对已有法律法规的不严格遵守,法官庭外证据调查存在启动条件混乱、手段不规范、调查结果被滥用等一系列问题,损害了当事人尤其是被告人的合法权益,也违背了程序正义的要求。面对理论界对该项制度的存废之争,笔者认为在我国现有司法国情下,法官庭外证据调查权仍有很大的存在必要,应持“保留加限制说”,对其进行完善,以最大程度发挥该制度应有价值。本文第一部分对“法官庭外证据调查权”的概念加以界定,即作为刑事诉讼裁判者的法官,针对庭审过程中已出示或未出示的对证明案件事实有影响的证据,在法庭审理以外的时间进行调查、核实的权力；并在对概念进行分析的基础上总结出它的性质。本文第二部分从比较法的角度对法官庭外证据调查权进行域外考察。分别论述了当事人主义模式、以法、德为代表的职权主义模式、以日、意为代表的混合模式下法官庭外证据调查的规定和运用情况；鉴于2012年我国台湾地区“最高法院”出台了关于法官职权证据调查的新决议,对法官可依职权庭外取证的范围作了目的性限缩,这对我国大陆地区制度改革也起到了借鉴作用,笔者同样对我国台湾地区该项制度的演进和现状进行了分析。本文第三部分对我国刑事法官庭外证据调查权的现状进行描述,并对此加以分析。其中包括立法现状与权力的行使现状。我国《刑事诉讼法》只有对该项权力运行手段的简单描述,权力行使中,也存在随意性较大、调查范围被扩大等问题。本文第四部分是关于刑事法官庭外证据调查权存在合理性的论述。笔者认为保留该项权力是基于发现案件实体真实的需要,是基于不同阶段证明标准差异性的需要,是基于我国诉讼传统与法官地位的需要,是基于纠正我国控辩力量失衡的司法现状的需要,因应其存在具有合理性。本文第五部分是本文的核心部分,即如何完善我国刑事法官庭外证据调查制度。笔者首先论述了该项权力与证明责任分配原则、控审分离原则的协调问题,随后总结出权力行使过程中应遵循的基本原则,这是完善我国刑事法官庭外证据调查制度的理念基础；在此基础上笔者对制度的具体构建提出了一些建议,从启动条件、启动方式、对申请的受理、具体调查的方式、手段、调查结果的效力以及制约机制七个方面进行论述。在制度的改良中,我们需要兼顾实体真实与程序正义两种价值,也需要在职权主义模式的现状下赋予当事人更多诉讼参与权。这也是完善我国刑事法官庭外证据调查权的难点所在,相信通过法律的完善和程序的规制,该项制度能够最大程度地发挥出积极的作用。
[Abstract]:From the point of view of procedural justice , it is not enough to make the judge realize " the facts of the case , the evidence is true and sufficient " . From the point of view of procedural justice , it is not enough to make the judge realize " the facts of the case , the evidence is true and sufficient " . However , any kind of power is expansive , from the " ultra - power mode " all the way , our country ' s criminal justice is unable to get rid of the tendency of the judge ' s function surplus in the process of improving the party doctrine , the judge ' s court outside evidence investigation right is not perfect , the judge in the judicial practice to the existing laws and regulations is not strict , the judge ' s court outside evidence investigation has a great deal of the necessity , the judge ' s court outside evidence investigation right still has a great deal of necessity , should hold the " reserve and limit theory " , it is perfect , to exert the system due value to the maximum extent . The first part of this article defines the concept of " judge outside evidence investigation right " , that is , the judge who is the judge of the criminal procedure , the evidence that has been produced or not shown in the course of the trial , which has an influence on the facts of the case , investigates and verifies the time outside the hearing of the court , and summarizes its nature on the basis of the analysis of the concept . In the second part of this paper , the investigation of judge ' s right of evidence is carried out from the perspective of comparative law . The author discusses the principle pattern of judge ' s power of evidence in the mixed mode , which is represented by law and morality . In view of the new resolution on the investigation of judge ' s ex officio evidence in the " Supreme Court " of Taiwan area in 2012 , the author has made a reference to the reform of the system in mainland China . The author also analyses the evolution and the present situation of the system in Taiwan . The third part of this paper describes the present situation of the investigation right of criminal judge ' s evidence in our country , and analyzes it . It includes the status quo of legislation and the exercise of power . The fourth part of this paper is about the rationality of the investigation right of criminal judge ' s evidence investigation . The author thinks that retaining the power is based on the actual requirement of finding the case entity . It is the need to prove the difference of standard based on different stages . It is based on the needs of the traditional Chinese litigation tradition and the status of the judge , and is based on the need of the judicial status quo of correcting the imbalance of the power imbalance in China . The fifth part of this paper is the core part of this paper , that is how to perfect the investigation system of the evidence investigation of criminal judge in our country . In the improvement of the system , we need to balance the real and procedural justice values of the entity , and also need to give the parties more litigation participation in the current situation of the power doctrine mode . This is also the difficulty of perfecting the investigation right of the criminal judge outside the court , and believes that the system can play a positive role to the greatest extent through the perfection of the law and the regulation of the procedure .

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】