刑事审判中法官的证据调查权研究

发布时间：2018-03-17 21:46

本文选题：刑事审判　切入点：证据调查权　出处：《辽宁大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在刑事审判中法官的职责是查明事实真相,依据证据对案件作出裁判,而当证据存有疑问时,法官对证据的准确判断、排除合理怀疑就显的尤为重要。对证据的判断方式有多种,既可以通过控辩双方当事人的举证质证进行判断,又可以通过法官直接对证据调查进行判断。我国《刑事诉讼法》经过了几次修改,在2012年最终保留了法官的证据调查权,法官不但可以在开庭时根据控辩双方举证质证进行证据调查,而且赋予合议庭在法庭外核实证据的权力,庭外证据调查权的行使能帮助法官对证据的合法性和正当性作出判断,提高诉讼效率,促进实体公正。但是法律对法官证据调查权的规定过于简单、粗糙,在司法实践中不能很好运用,尤其是对于庭外证据调查权的规定启动条件不详细,监督机制不完善,调查程序、调查手段的不完整,导致在司法实践中出现诸多问题,急需采取措施加以完善,从而维护司法公正。本文从四个部分对法官证据调查权进行论述。第一部分论述法官证据调查权的合理性及在我国存在的正当性。理论上对法官证据调查权的存废有不同的观点,主要分为赞成说和反对说,笔者通过对两种观点的分析,表达笔者观点并阐述法官证据调查权在我国适用的正当性。第二部分分析在职权主义国家、当事人主义国家以及混合主义国家法官证据调查权的情况,总结出各个国家法官证据调查权制度的优点并总结域外立法经验及对我国的借鉴意义,对于我国法官证据调查权的改进和完善起着重要作用。第三部分分析了我国法官证据调查权的法律规定情况,目前我国《刑事诉讼法》只承认了法官证据调权在我国的存在,法官可以行使庭内证据调查权和庭外证据调查权,但对权力行使的监督机制不完善,程序启动机制不具体,庭外调取证据的效力模糊,没遵循回避制度等情况在司法实践中仍存在诸多问题。第四部分是针对法官证据调查权在我国存在的问题而提出的具体解决措施。从理论上和实践上分别对措施进行阐述,并说明具体的理由。法官进行庭外证据调查时应该怎么回避,如何把庭外证据调查的启动程序具体化,庭外调取证据效力怎样认定,庭外调查手段的增加以及对庭外调查程序的完善等都有笔者详细的分析。
[Abstract]:The duty of a judge in a criminal trial is to find out the facts and decide the case on the basis of evidence, and when the evidence is in doubt, the judge's accurate judgment of the evidence, It is particularly important to eliminate reasonable doubt. There are many ways of judging evidence, which can be judged by the evidence and cross-examination of both parties. We can also judge the evidence investigation directly by the judge. After several amendments, the Criminal procedure Law of our country finally retained the judge's power to investigate the evidence in 2012. Not only can the judge conduct an investigation of evidence according to the evidence and cross-examination of both the prosecution and the defence at the hearing, but also endow the collegial panel with the power to verify the evidence outside the court. The exercise of the right to investigate the evidence out of court can help the judge to judge the legality and legitimacy of the evidence. Improve the efficiency of litigation, promote substantive justice. But the law of the judge's right to investigate evidence is too simple, rough, can not be used in judicial practice, especially for out-of-court evidence of the right to investigate the provisions of the starting conditions are not detailed, The imperfect supervision mechanism, the incomplete investigation procedure and the incomplete investigation means lead to many problems in the judicial practice, so it is urgent to take measures to perfect them. The first part discusses the rationality of the judge's right to investigate the evidence and the legitimacy of its existence in our country. Theoretically, the author discusses the existence of the right of the judge's right to investigate the evidence. There are different points of view. The author expresses his views and expounds the legitimacy of the application of the judge's right to investigate evidence in our country through the analysis of the two viewpoints. This paper summarizes the merits of the system of the judge's right to investigate evidence in the country of litigant doctrine and the country of mixed doctrine, and sums up the experience of legislation outside the country and the significance of reference to our country. It plays an important role in the improvement and perfection of the judge's right to investigate evidence in our country. The third part analyzes the legal provisions of the right to investigate the evidence in our country. At present, the Criminal procedure Law of our country only recognizes the existence of the power of adjusting the evidence of the judge in our country. The judge may exercise the power to investigate evidence in court and the right to investigate evidence out of court, but the supervision mechanism for the exercise of the power is not perfect, the mechanism for initiating the procedure is not specific, and the effectiveness of taking evidence out of court is not clear. In the judicial practice, there are still many problems in the situation of not following the challenge system. The 4th part is a concrete solution to the problem of the judge's right to investigate evidence in our country. And explain the specific reasons. How should the judge conduct the investigation of evidence out of court how to avoid, how to make the initiation procedure of the investigation of evidence out of court specific, how to determine the validity of the evidence transferred out of court, The increase of out-of-court investigation means and the perfection of out-court investigation procedure are analyzed in detail.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】