| 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、共同受审与双轨调查三种模式。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，否则一般禁止使用共同被告陈述给其定罪。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，这不利于查明事实和维护司法公正。我国宜承认共同被告具有被告与证人的双重诉讼角色，调整庭审的功能定位，探索新的制度模式。 |
| 关键词: 共同被告 法庭调查 合并审判 分离审判 对质诘问 |
| 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）、教育部人文社会科学研究一般项目“将电子数据取证纳入《刑事诉讼法》问题研究”（项目编号： 24VJA820003）、中国人民公安大学2019年度基本科研业务费新任教师科研启动基金项目“刑事笔录证据的证明力及其适用规则研究”（项目编号： 2019JKF401） |
|
| Mode Analysis and Institutional Design for Court Investigation of Co-defendants' Statements |
|
Shao Qicong
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| This Article analyzes three modes of court investigation regarding criminal co-defendants' statements: the defendant's testimony mode, the joint inquest mode and the dual-track investigation mode. These modes aim to ensure the fairness of joint trial and the accuracy of fact-finding. Despite their shared emphasis on the defendant's right to adequately and properly challenge or question a witness or co-defendant against them—failing which such statements generally cannot be used for conviction—these modes differ significantly due to variations in legal traditions, procedural structures, and national justice systems. In China, while the defendant's right to cross-examine is formally recognized, the practice of separate interrogation often prevents defendants from hearing co-defendants' statements. Moreover, judges exclusively initiate and dominate the confrontation procedure, allowing hearsay evidence to be directly used for conviction. These practices hinder fact-finding and compromise judicial fairness. To address these issues, China might consider recognizing the dual procedural role of co-defendants as both defendant and witness, refining the functional objectives of trials, and exploring innovative institutional frameworks. |
| Key words: Co-defendant, Court Investigation, Joint Trial, Separate Trial, Confrontation |
