發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-02-20 22:11

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查 實(shí)體真實(shí) 程序正義 價(jià)值平衡　出處：《山東大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查權(quán)是對(duì)法官庭審中調(diào)查、核實(shí)證據(jù)職能的補(bǔ)充和延伸�，F(xiàn)代刑事訴訟追求實(shí)體真實(shí)與程序正義兩種訴訟價(jià)值的平衡。從實(shí)體真實(shí)角度出發(fā),很多時(shí)候單純依靠法庭審理并不足以使法官實(shí)現(xiàn)“案件事實(shí)清楚,證據(jù)確實(shí)、充分”的內(nèi)心確認(rèn)；而從程序正義的角度來(lái)看,在我國(guó)控辯力量相差懸殊、辯方取證能力受到限制的司法現(xiàn)狀下,以法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查的方式給予被告人作適當(dāng)?shù)摹叭∽C幫助”,則是在實(shí)質(zhì)上平衡了控辯雙方的訴訟力量,是追求程序正義的一種表現(xiàn)。從應(yīng)然的角度來(lái)評(píng)價(jià)法官的庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查權(quán),其訴訟價(jià)值不可否定。 然而,任何一種權(quán)力都具有擴(kuò)張性,從“超職權(quán)主義模式”一路走來(lái),我國(guó)刑事司法在向當(dāng)事人主義改進(jìn)的過(guò)程中始終無(wú)法擺脫法官職能過(guò)剩的傾向,法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查權(quán)也是如此,由于我國(guó)刑訴法對(duì)該項(xiàng)權(quán)力的規(guī)定不甚完善,加之法官在司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)已有法律法規(guī)的不嚴(yán)格遵守,法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查存在啟動(dòng)條件混亂、手段不規(guī)范、調(diào)查結(jié)果被濫用等一系列問(wèn)題,損害了當(dāng)事人尤其是被告人的合法權(quán)益,也違背了程序正義的要求。面對(duì)理論界對(duì)該項(xiàng)制度的存廢之爭(zhēng),筆者認(rèn)為在我國(guó)現(xiàn)有司法國(guó)情下,法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查權(quán)仍有很大的存在必要,應(yīng)持“保留加限制說(shuō)”,對(duì)其進(jìn)行完善,以最大程度發(fā)揮該制度應(yīng)有價(jià)值。 本文第一部分對(duì)“法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查權(quán)”的概念加以界定,即作為刑事訴訟裁判者的法官,針對(duì)庭審過(guò)程中已出示或未出示的對(duì)證明案件事實(shí)有影響的證據(jù),在法庭審理以外的時(shí)間進(jìn)行調(diào)查、核實(shí)的權(quán)力；并在對(duì)概念進(jìn)行分析的基礎(chǔ)上總結(jié)出它的性質(zhì)。 本文第二部分從比較法的角度對(duì)法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查權(quán)進(jìn)行域外考察。分別論述了當(dāng)事人主義模式、以法、德為代表的職權(quán)主義模式、以日、意為代表的混合模式下法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查的規(guī)定和運(yùn)用情況；鑒于2012年我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)“最高法院”出臺(tái)了關(guān)于法官職權(quán)證據(jù)調(diào)查的新決議,對(duì)法官可依職權(quán)庭外取證的范圍作了目的性限縮,這對(duì)我國(guó)大陸地區(qū)制度改革也起到了借鑒作用,筆者同樣對(duì)我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)該項(xiàng)制度的演進(jìn)和現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行了分析。 本文第三部分對(duì)我國(guó)刑事法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查權(quán)的現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行描述,并對(duì)此加以分析。其中包括立法現(xiàn)狀與權(quán)力的行使現(xiàn)狀。我國(guó)《刑事訴訟法》只有對(duì)該項(xiàng)權(quán)力運(yùn)行手段的簡(jiǎn)單描述,權(quán)力行使中,也存在隨意性較大、調(diào)查范圍被擴(kuò)大等問(wèn)題。 本文第四部分是關(guān)于刑事法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查權(quán)存在合理性的論述。筆者認(rèn)為保留該項(xiàng)權(quán)力是基于發(fā)現(xiàn)案件實(shí)體真實(shí)的需要,是基于不同階段證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差異性的需要,是基于我國(guó)訴訟傳統(tǒng)與法官地位的需要,是基于糾正我國(guó)控辯力量失衡的司法現(xiàn)狀的需要,因應(yīng)其存在具有合理性。 本文第五部分是本文的核心部分,即如何完善我國(guó)刑事法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查制度。筆者首先論述了該項(xiàng)權(quán)力與證明責(zé)任分配原則、控審分離原則的協(xié)調(diào)問(wèn)題,隨后總結(jié)出權(quán)力行使過(guò)程中應(yīng)遵循的基本原則,這是完善我國(guó)刑事法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查制度的理念基礎(chǔ)；在此基礎(chǔ)上筆者對(duì)制度的具體構(gòu)建提出了一些建議,從啟動(dòng)條件、啟動(dòng)方式、對(duì)申請(qǐng)的受理、具體調(diào)查的方式、手段、調(diào)查結(jié)果的效力以及制約機(jī)制七個(gè)方面進(jìn)行論述。 在制度的改良中,我們需要兼顧實(shí)體真實(shí)與程序正義兩種價(jià)值,也需要在職權(quán)主義模式的現(xiàn)狀下賦予當(dāng)事人更多訴訟參與權(quán)。這也是完善我國(guó)刑事法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查權(quán)的難點(diǎn)所在,相信通過(guò)法律的完善和程序的規(guī)制,該項(xiàng)制度能夠最大程度地發(fā)揮出積極的作用。
[Abstract]:From the point of view of procedural justice , it is not enough to make the judge realize " the facts of the case , the evidence is true and sufficient " . From the point of view of procedural justice , it is not enough to make the judge realize " the facts of the case , the evidence is true and sufficient " . However , any kind of power is expansive , from the " ultra - power mode " all the way , our country ' s criminal justice is unable to get rid of the tendency of the judge ' s function surplus in the process of improving the party doctrine , the judge ' s court outside evidence investigation right is not perfect , the judge in the judicial practice to the existing laws and regulations is not strict , the judge ' s court outside evidence investigation has a great deal of the necessity , the judge ' s court outside evidence investigation right still has a great deal of necessity , should hold the " reserve and limit theory " , it is perfect , to exert the system due value to the maximum extent . The first part of this article defines the concept of " judge outside evidence investigation right " , that is , the judge who is the judge of the criminal procedure , the evidence that has been produced or not shown in the course of the trial , which has an influence on the facts of the case , investigates and verifies the time outside the hearing of the court , and summarizes its nature on the basis of the analysis of the concept . In the second part of this paper , the investigation of judge ' s right of evidence is carried out from the perspective of comparative law . The author discusses the principle pattern of judge ' s power of evidence in the mixed mode , which is represented by law and morality . In view of the new resolution on the investigation of judge ' s ex officio evidence in the " Supreme Court " of Taiwan area in 2012 , the author has made a reference to the reform of the system in mainland China . The author also analyses the evolution and the present situation of the system in Taiwan . The third part of this paper describes the present situation of the investigation right of criminal judge ' s evidence in our country , and analyzes it . It includes the status quo of legislation and the exercise of power . The fourth part of this paper is about the rationality of the investigation right of criminal judge ' s evidence investigation . The author thinks that retaining the power is based on the actual requirement of finding the case entity . It is the need to prove the difference of standard based on different stages . It is based on the needs of the traditional Chinese litigation tradition and the status of the judge , and is based on the need of the judicial status quo of correcting the imbalance of the power imbalance in China . The fifth part of this paper is the core part of this paper , that is how to perfect the investigation system of the evidence investigation of criminal judge in our country . In the improvement of the system , we need to balance the real and procedural justice values of the entity , and also need to give the parties more litigation participation in the current situation of the power doctrine mode . This is also the difficulty of perfecting the investigation right of the criminal judge outside the court , and believes that the system can play a positive role to the greatest extent through the perfection of the law and the regulation of the procedure .

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 李蓮;;淺談法官依申請(qǐng)調(diào)查取證權(quán)——從刑事訴訟角度的分析[J];滄桑;2006年06期

2 覃雅胤;;刑事訴訟中的法官庭外調(diào)查權(quán)[J];宿州教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年02期

3 李昌盛;;事實(shí)認(rèn)定的中立性[J];清華法學(xué);2012年04期

4 陳如超;;論法官的查證責(zé)任與控辯雙方證明責(zé)任的邊界[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2011年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1520165