摘要: |
为保障刑事合并审判的公正性与事实认定的准确性,各国针对共同被告陈述的法庭调查发展出被告作证模式、共同受审模式与双轨调查模式。三种模式受法律传统、诉讼构造与国家正义性格的影响而差异较大,但均认为本案被告应有机会当面挑战、充分质疑指控他的共同被告,否则禁止用共同被告陈述给本案被告定罪。我国虽承认被告有质证权,却以分别讯问阻碍其获悉共同被告的陈述内容,并由法官垄断对质程序的启动权与主导权,甚至允许直接以共同被告庭外陈述作为定罪证据,极易导致冤假错案。我国应承认共同被告具有被告与证人的双重诉讼角色,赋予本案被告在场权、对质诘问权和阅卷权以检验共同被告陈述的真实性,构建多元的法庭调查程序以平衡被告间的权利冲突。 |
关键词: 共同被告 法庭调查 合并审判 分离审判 对质诘问权 |
DOI: |
分类号: |
基金项目:国家社会科学基金青年项目“辅助证据的证据规则研究”(项目编号:19CFX044) |
|
Mode Analysis and System Construction of Court Investigation to Co-defendant's Statement |
Shao Qi-Cong
|
People''s Public Security University of China
|
Abstract: |
This Article analyzes three modes of court investigation to criminal co-defendant’s statement including the defendant's testimony mode, the joint inquest mode and the dual-track investigation mode, which guarantee the fairness of the joint trial and the accuracy of the fact finding. Three modes are quite different due to the influence of legal tradition, litigation structure and national justice character, but all of them agree that the defendant should have adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness or co-defendant against him; otherwise, it is forbidden to convict the defendant with such statement. Although China recognizes the defendant's right to cross-examine, it prevents him from hearing the co-defendant's statement by means of separate interrogation. What’s more, judges have the exclusive power to initiate and dominate the confrontation procedure, even allow the hearsay to be directly used as evidence of conviction, which easily leads to Wrongful Convictions. China should recognize that the co-defendant has the dual litigation roles of defendant and witness, ensure defendants’ right to be present, confrontation and access to the casefile and establish diversified investigation procedures to correspond different situations. |
Key words: co-defendant court investigation joint trial separate trial confrontation |