侦查人员出庭说明情况问题研究——从《刑事诉讼法》第57条第2款切入

发布时间：2018-06-03 21:07

本文选题：证据收集的合法性 + 侦查人员　；参考：《法学》2017年03期

【摘要】：从历史谱系梳理、文义分析以及体系解释的比较可以发现,我国《刑事诉讼法》第57条第2款中涉及出庭说明情况的侦查人员并不具有证人身份。立法的这一规定源于对侦查高负荷工作的关照,同时也暗合了自由证明原理中证据调查的基本方式。然而,现有的规范体系对证据收集的合法性事实由侦查人员出庭说明情况的规定仍有需要完善之处。首先,侦查人员应摒弃既往的威权意识,顺应以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革,主动出庭,自证清白,并尽量降低书面"情况说明"的使用频率;其次,应探索自由证明的层次化构建,对于证据合法性的异议若无法在"释明"层面澄清争点,所涉证据又关乎案件主要事实的查明或被告人基本权利的保障,应以相对严格的自由证明之证据调查方式递进补足,适时赋予辩方对质诘问权。
[Abstract]:From the comparison of historical pedigree, semantic analysis and system interpretation, it can be found that the investigators involved in the explanation of appearance in the second paragraph of Article 57 of the Criminal procedure Law of our country do not have witness status. This regulation of legislation is derived from the concern for the heavy workload of investigation, and at the same time fits the basic mode of evidence investigation in the principle of free proof. However, the existing normative system still needs to perfect the rule that the legality of evidence collection is explained by the investigators in court. First, investigators should abandon the past sense of authoritarianism, comply with the reform of the trial-centered litigation system, take the initiative to appear in court, prove their innocence, and minimize the frequency of use of the written "statement of circumstances"; secondly, The hierarchical construction of free proof should be explored. If the objection to the legality of evidence cannot clarify the point of contention at the level of "interpretation", the evidence involved relates to the identification of the main facts of the case or the protection of the basic rights of the defendant. The evidence investigation should be supplemented by a relatively strict evidence investigation, and the defense should be given the right to cross-examine in due course.
【作者单位】：最高人民检察院检察理论研究所;
【基金】：作者主持的2014年国家社科基金青年项目《检察环节刑事错案成因与对策的实证研究》(项目批准号:14CFX023)的阶段性研究成果
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】