论我国传闻证据规则的构建
发布时间：2018-08-29 18:19
【摘要】：传闻证据规则诞生于英美法系国家,是英美法系证据法中最古老、最具特色的证据规则之一。在我国刑事案件中,证人证言是一项非常重要的证据,《刑事诉讼法》第59条当中明确规定了证人证言必须经过当庭的质证,查证属实后才可以作为定案依据,然而在司法实践中的普通现象则是证人出庭率低,大量书面证言进入法庭,法官通过阅读各种书面证人证言来作为定案的依据,显然司法实践中并没有很好的履行法条中的规定。我国在2013年新刑事诉讼法当中对于证人出庭作证方面取得了许多新的突破,试图完善证人出庭的相关制度,来提高证人出庭率,然而在条件完善的情况下,对于规则适用同样不能够退却,新刑诉法当中确立非法证据排除规则,是我国关于证据规则一项里程碑式的突破,在证据可采性方面起了一个好头,对于同样重要的传闻证据规则而言,确立传闻证据规则有利于法庭获取最佳证据,保障被告人的质证权,有利于作出公正的审判,因此结合我国实际情况,构建传闻证据规则意义非常重大。本文将从四个方面对传闻证据规则进行分析。 第一章,主要针对传闻证据与传闻证据规则的基本概念进行概述,同时与他们相似的概念传来证据与直接言词原则进行一下比较分析,可以更清晰的明确传闻证据的概念及其特点。 第二章,分析了我国传闻证据相关的立法情况,同时列举了13起经典司法错案,总结归纳了传闻证据在我国司法实践中具体表现形式及其适用情况。 第三章,查找归纳了其他国家对于传闻证据规则的具体规定,尤其关注英美这些国家的传闻证据规则,同时也借鉴了大陆法系国家如日本、德国等国的传闻证据规则,为我国传闻证据规则的构建提供了重要的参考价值。 第四章,通过分析我国构建传闻证据规则的必要性表明我国现阶段已经具备了构建传闻证据规则的条件,本章通过实体与程序两个角度出发,为我国构建传闻证据规则提出了一些建议。
[Abstract]:Hearsay evidence rule is one of the oldest and most characteristic evidence rules in Anglo-American law system. In criminal cases in China, witness testimony is a very important piece of evidence. Article 59 of the Criminal procedure Law clearly stipulates that witnesses' testimony must be cross-examined in court before it can be taken as the basis for a final case. However, the common phenomenon in judicial practice is that the rate of witnesses appearing in court is low, a large number of written testimonies enter the court, and the judge reads the testimony of various written witnesses as the basis for the determination of the case. Obviously, the judicial practice does not fulfill the provisions of the law very well. In the new criminal procedure law of 2013, our country has made many new breakthroughs in the aspect of witness appearing in court, trying to perfect the relevant system of witness appearing in court in order to increase the rate of witness appearing in court, however, under the condition of perfect condition, As for the application of the rules, it is also impossible to retreat. The establishment of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence in the new Criminal procedure Law is a landmark breakthrough on the rule of evidence in our country, and it has made a good start in the admissibility of evidence. For the equally important hearsay evidence rules, the establishment of hearsay evidence rules is conducive to the court to obtain the best evidence, to protect the defendant's right of cross-examination and to make a fair trial. The construction of hearsay evidence rules is of great significance. This paper will analyze hearsay evidence rules from four aspects. The first chapter summarizes the basic concepts of hearsay evidence and hearsay evidence rules, and makes a comparative analysis of the principles of evidence and direct words. The concept and characteristics of hearsay evidence can be clarified more clearly. The second chapter analyzes the legislation of hearsay evidence in our country, enumerates 13 classic cases of judicial error, summarizes the specific manifestations of hearsay evidence in our judicial practice and its application. In the third chapter, it sums up the specific rules of hearsay evidence in other countries, especially the hearsay rules of the United States and the United States, and at the same time draws on the hearsay rules of civil law countries such as Japan and Germany. It provides an important reference value for the construction of hearsay evidence rules in China. Chapter four, by analyzing the necessity of constructing hearsay evidence rule in our country, indicates that our country already has the condition of constructing hearsay evidence rule at present, this chapter sets out from two angles of entity and procedure. Some suggestions are put forward for the construction of hearsay evidence rules in China.
【学位授予单位】：延边大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.23
本文编号：2212026
[Abstract]:Hearsay evidence rule is one of the oldest and most characteristic evidence rules in Anglo-American law system. In criminal cases in China, witness testimony is a very important piece of evidence. Article 59 of the Criminal procedure Law clearly stipulates that witnesses' testimony must be cross-examined in court before it can be taken as the basis for a final case. However, the common phenomenon in judicial practice is that the rate of witnesses appearing in court is low, a large number of written testimonies enter the court, and the judge reads the testimony of various written witnesses as the basis for the determination of the case. Obviously, the judicial practice does not fulfill the provisions of the law very well. In the new criminal procedure law of 2013, our country has made many new breakthroughs in the aspect of witness appearing in court, trying to perfect the relevant system of witness appearing in court in order to increase the rate of witness appearing in court, however, under the condition of perfect condition, As for the application of the rules, it is also impossible to retreat. The establishment of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence in the new Criminal procedure Law is a landmark breakthrough on the rule of evidence in our country, and it has made a good start in the admissibility of evidence. For the equally important hearsay evidence rules, the establishment of hearsay evidence rules is conducive to the court to obtain the best evidence, to protect the defendant's right of cross-examination and to make a fair trial. The construction of hearsay evidence rules is of great significance. This paper will analyze hearsay evidence rules from four aspects. The first chapter summarizes the basic concepts of hearsay evidence and hearsay evidence rules, and makes a comparative analysis of the principles of evidence and direct words. The concept and characteristics of hearsay evidence can be clarified more clearly. The second chapter analyzes the legislation of hearsay evidence in our country, enumerates 13 classic cases of judicial error, summarizes the specific manifestations of hearsay evidence in our judicial practice and its application. In the third chapter, it sums up the specific rules of hearsay evidence in other countries, especially the hearsay rules of the United States and the United States, and at the same time draws on the hearsay rules of civil law countries such as Japan and Germany. It provides an important reference value for the construction of hearsay evidence rules in China. Chapter four, by analyzing the necessity of constructing hearsay evidence rule in our country, indicates that our country already has the condition of constructing hearsay evidence rule at present, this chapter sets out from two angles of entity and procedure. Some suggestions are put forward for the construction of hearsay evidence rules in China.
【学位授予单位】：延边大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.23
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 朱立恒;;英国传闻证据规则例外的变迁及其启示[J];比较法研究;2008年06期
2 毕颖;;对我国刑事诉讼中确立传闻证据规则的建议[J];东方企业文化;2011年24期
3 易明;梁鹏;;论美国证据法上的传闻证据规则[J];东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2011年S1期
4 朱冠群;;传闻证据规则例外情形的法理分析[J];法制与经济(下旬);2012年02期
5 陈学权;;论刑事诉讼中实体公正与程序公正的并重[J];法学评论;2013年04期
6 石岩;;论刑事案件中法官对证据属性的审查判断规则[J];法制博览(中旬刊);2014年01期
7 蔡震宇;;从一起盗窃案看传闻证据的审查与运用 兼评新刑事诉讼法第187条的得失[J];中国检察官;2012年10期
8 兰志伟;于景平;;论新刑诉法证人出庭作证制度在检察实践中的运用[J];河北法学;2013年09期
9 何邦武;;证人出庭作证例外的裁量性标准问题探析——基于修订后《刑事诉讼法》第187条、第188条的分析[J];政治与法律;2013年05期
10 史立梅;;美国对质权条款与传闻证据规则关系之考察[J];环球法律评论;2010年06期
，本文编号：2212026
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2212026.html
