美國無效辯護救濟程序及其對我國的啟示
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-09 15:38
【摘要】：美國憲法第六修正案明確規(guī)定了被告人有獲得律師幫助的權利,早期對其的解讀為單純的有律師幫助,后來隨著現(xiàn)代刑事訴訟的發(fā)展,對辯護質量的重視程度日益加深,其由單純的有律師辯護轉變?yōu)橛新蓭熡行У霓q護。律師的辯護既然有有效辯護,那么也就必然存在無效辯護,無效辯護產(chǎn)生的原因是:政府或法院的不當干涉、律師不稱職的辯護或者存在利益沖突等。在美國通過一系列的判例最終確立了無效辯護制度,無效辯護制度是一種刑事訴訟程序范圍內的權利救濟方式,它通過無效辯護救濟程序實現(xiàn)權利的救濟。無效辯護救濟的理由為辯護中存在“行為瑕疵”,辯護導致了“不利結果”。在美國被告人可以通過上訴審前動議、直接上訴或間接審查程序三種途徑進行救濟,首先由被告人提起無效辯護的申請,然后證明自己遭受無效辯護行為,并為此承擔了不利結果,最終法院會對其申請進行審查,若認可其申請,便會撤銷原判或發(fā)回重審。無效辯護救濟程序的設立為辯護權遭到律師侵害的被告人提供了救濟的機會,其目的不是為了懲戒律師,而是為了保證被告人獲得公正的審判。美國無效辯護救濟程序的設立對保障被告人的辯護權,提高律師的辯護質量,確保審判的公正具有積極的意義。但是由于審查規(guī)則制定的過高,證明責任負擔的過重,也使得法院在一般情形下很難認可無效辯護行為。我國現(xiàn)階段還沒有關于無效辯護的救濟程序,通過對美國無效辯護救濟程序的介紹分析,以及從加強被告人辯護權保障和改善我國現(xiàn)在刑事辯護的需要,我們可以借鑒美國的無效辯護救濟程序,設立我國的無效辯護救濟程序。我國當前刑事辯護率較低,所以在設計我國無效辯護救濟程序之時要結合這一國情,既不會挫傷律師辯護的積極性,又能夠保障被告人的辯護權利。被告人可以無效辯護為理由直接提起上訴或者發(fā)起審判監(jiān)督程序。證明責任方面由被告人承擔遭受無效辯護行為的證明,辯護律師則承擔其行為沒有造成不利結果的證明。法院在審查時可以設立一個聽證程序,給予雙方舉證說明、辯論的機會,最終確認是否存在無效辯護的行為,保證審判結果的公正。
[Abstract]:The sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States clearly stipulates that the accused has the right to be assisted by a lawyer, which was interpreted as simple with the help of a lawyer at the early stage. Later, with the development of modern criminal proceedings, the emphasis on the quality of defense has been deepened day by day. It changes from a simple lawyer's defense to an effective one. Since a lawyer's defense has an effective defense, there must be an invalid defense. The causes of the invalid defense are the improper intervention of the government or the court, the incompetent defense of the lawyer or the existence of conflicts of interest. In the United States, the system of invalid defense was finally established through a series of precedents. The system of invalid defense is a kind of right relief within the scope of criminal procedure, and it realizes the relief of right through the procedure of invalid defense. The reason of invalid defense remedy is that there are "behavioral defects" in the defense, and the defense leads to "unfavorable result". In the United States, a defendant can provide relief through a pretrial motion, a direct appeal or an indirect review procedure. First, an application for invalidity is filed by the defendant, and then he proves that he has suffered an invalid defence. In the end, the court will review the application, and if it approves the application, it will rescind the decision or return it to the court. The establishment of the procedure of invalid defense relief provides an opportunity for the defendant whose right of defense has been infringed by the lawyer. The purpose of the procedure is not to discipline the lawyer, but to ensure the defendant to obtain a fair trial. The establishment of the invalid defense relief procedure in the United States is of positive significance to the protection of the defendant's right to defence, to the improvement of the defense quality of the lawyer and to the fairness of the trial. However, it is difficult for the court to approve the invalid defense under normal circumstances because of the overburden of burden of proof. At the present stage, there is no relief procedure for invalid defense in our country. Through the introduction and analysis of the relief procedure for invalid defense in the United States, and the need to strengthen the defense right of the accused and improve the present criminal defense in our country, We can draw lessons from the invalid defense relief procedure of the United States and set up the invalid defense relief procedure of our country. At present, the rate of criminal defense in our country is relatively low, so when designing the procedure of invalid defense relief in our country, we should combine this situation, which will not dampen the enthusiasm of lawyer's defense, but also can protect the defendant's defense right. The defendant may appeal directly on the ground of invalidation of the defence or initiate trial supervision proceedings. In terms of burden of proof, the defendant bears the proof that the defendant has suffered the invalid defense act, while the defense lawyer bears the proof that the act has no adverse result. The court may, at the time of examination, establish a hearing procedure that gives both parties the opportunity to present evidence, argue, and ultimately confirm the existence of an invalid defence and guarantee the fairness of the trial result.
【學位授予單位】：湘潭大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D971.2;DD915.3;D925.2
本文編號：2259860
[Abstract]:The sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States clearly stipulates that the accused has the right to be assisted by a lawyer, which was interpreted as simple with the help of a lawyer at the early stage. Later, with the development of modern criminal proceedings, the emphasis on the quality of defense has been deepened day by day. It changes from a simple lawyer's defense to an effective one. Since a lawyer's defense has an effective defense, there must be an invalid defense. The causes of the invalid defense are the improper intervention of the government or the court, the incompetent defense of the lawyer or the existence of conflicts of interest. In the United States, the system of invalid defense was finally established through a series of precedents. The system of invalid defense is a kind of right relief within the scope of criminal procedure, and it realizes the relief of right through the procedure of invalid defense. The reason of invalid defense remedy is that there are "behavioral defects" in the defense, and the defense leads to "unfavorable result". In the United States, a defendant can provide relief through a pretrial motion, a direct appeal or an indirect review procedure. First, an application for invalidity is filed by the defendant, and then he proves that he has suffered an invalid defence. In the end, the court will review the application, and if it approves the application, it will rescind the decision or return it to the court. The establishment of the procedure of invalid defense relief provides an opportunity for the defendant whose right of defense has been infringed by the lawyer. The purpose of the procedure is not to discipline the lawyer, but to ensure the defendant to obtain a fair trial. The establishment of the invalid defense relief procedure in the United States is of positive significance to the protection of the defendant's right to defence, to the improvement of the defense quality of the lawyer and to the fairness of the trial. However, it is difficult for the court to approve the invalid defense under normal circumstances because of the overburden of burden of proof. At the present stage, there is no relief procedure for invalid defense in our country. Through the introduction and analysis of the relief procedure for invalid defense in the United States, and the need to strengthen the defense right of the accused and improve the present criminal defense in our country, We can draw lessons from the invalid defense relief procedure of the United States and set up the invalid defense relief procedure of our country. At present, the rate of criminal defense in our country is relatively low, so when designing the procedure of invalid defense relief in our country, we should combine this situation, which will not dampen the enthusiasm of lawyer's defense, but also can protect the defendant's defense right. The defendant may appeal directly on the ground of invalidation of the defence or initiate trial supervision proceedings. In terms of burden of proof, the defendant bears the proof that the defendant has suffered the invalid defense act, while the defense lawyer bears the proof that the act has no adverse result. The court may, at the time of examination, establish a hearing procedure that gives both parties the opportunity to present evidence, argue, and ultimately confirm the existence of an invalid defence and guarantee the fairness of the trial result.
【學位授予單位】：湘潭大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D971.2;DD915.3;D925.2
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前6條
1 陳瑞華;;獨立辯護人理論的反思與重構[J];政法論壇;2013年06期
2 冀祥德;;刑事辯護準入制度與有效辯護及普遍辯護[J];清華法學;2012年04期
3 吳常青;王彪;;論我國死刑案件無效辯護制度構建[J];西部法學評論;2012年02期
4 陳效;;美國有效辯護理論辨析[J];學理論;2012年05期
5 韓紅興;劉傳高;;論死刑案件的律師有效辯護制度[J];法學雜志;2011年10期
6 施亞芬;;從國際刑事司法準則中的有效辯護原則看我國刑事訴訟法的完善[J];國際關系學院學報;2010年02期
相關碩士學位論文 前6條
1 朱潔;有效辯護原則研究[D];安徽財經(jīng)大學;2015年
2 鄧彪;無效辯護制度研究[D];南昌大學;2015年
3 張麗麗;無效辯護制度初論[D];安徽大學;2013年
4 楊結玲;論律師辯護不力制度[D];中國政法大學;2012年
5 魏中赫;有效辯護原則研究[D];河北大學;2010年
6 孫曉琦;論有效辯護制度[D];中國政法大學;2008年
，本文編號：2259860
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2259860.html
