本文選題：核實證據(jù) + 證據(jù)知悉權(quán)�。� 參考：《四川省社會科學(xué)院》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國《刑事訴訟法》在2012年修正后,首次規(guī)定了核實證據(jù)制度。核實證據(jù)這一規(guī)則的確立便于于辯護律師在偵查階段結(jié)束以后,審查起訴階段、審判階段中,在會見犯罪嫌疑人、被告人之時,向其核實案件的證據(jù)材料,從而確定證據(jù)材料的可靠性,更好地為辯護和質(zhì)證做準(zhǔn)備。然而,立法中對于“核實有關(guān)證據(jù)”的范圍、方式均未作說明,目前也沒有相關(guān)的立法解釋、司法解釋。理論界對此問題的觀點基于立場的不同,司法界與律師界觀點分歧較大。本文試圖從理論與實踐兩方面著手,一方面對辯護律師以及犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的相關(guān)訴訟權(quán)利從理論層面進行分析,并參考域外的證據(jù)開示等有關(guān)制度,通過從犯罪嫌疑人、被告人視角與辯護律師視角進行分析,來探討核實證據(jù)制度的理論依據(jù);另一方面,從目前辯護律師核實證據(jù)的實踐情況著手,針對核實證據(jù)可能造成的消極后果進行分析、解決。在此基礎(chǔ)上,為核實證據(jù)這一規(guī)定,提出一些立法建議。本文正文分為四個部分。第一部分研究了目前核實證據(jù)制度的相關(guān)理論問題。主要從理論爭議、被告人的辯護權(quán)利幾方面進行分析,對辯護律師核實證據(jù)的目的,理論界的不同觀點,核實證據(jù)制度對于犯罪嫌疑人、被告人質(zhì)證權(quán)、證據(jù)知悉權(quán)等辯護權(quán)利的實現(xiàn),庭審的順利進行以及訴訟成本節(jié)約的必要性進行了重點探析。第二部分對核實證據(jù)制度的現(xiàn)狀進行探討,厘清核實證據(jù)相關(guān)制度在域內(nèi)的實踐現(xiàn)狀以及域外的運用,在實踐中應(yīng)如何把握核實證據(jù)制度。第三部分主要討論了核實證據(jù)制度的風(fēng)險,包括辯護律師的執(zhí)業(yè)風(fēng)險以及控方的辦案風(fēng)險。第四部分對核實證據(jù)制度的進一步細化與完善提出了一些建議,對辯護律師核實證據(jù)的范圍限制、核實的重點以及核實證據(jù)的方式、時間段的把握進行了探討。根據(jù)前面幾個部分的探討,重點對核實證據(jù)制度如何細化規(guī)定,保護證人、被害人信息以及同案被告人供述的保密措施提出了一些建議與設(shè)想。
[Abstract]:After the amendment of the Criminal procedure Law in 2012, the system of verifying evidence is stipulated for the first time. The establishment of the rule on the verification of evidence is convenient for defence counsel to verify the evidentiary materials of the case at the end of the investigation stage, at the prosecution stage, during the trial stage, when meeting the criminal suspect or the accused, In order to determine the reliability of evidence materials, better defense and cross-examination preparation. However, the scope of "verification of relevant evidence" has not been explained in the legislation, and there is no relevant legislative interpretation or judicial interpretation at present. The views of the theorists on this issue are different from those of the judiciary and the lawyers. On the one hand, the author analyzes the related litigation rights of defense lawyers, suspects and defendants from a theoretical level, and refers to the relevant systems of evidence discovery outside the country, through the analysis of criminal suspects. On the other hand, starting from the current practice of verification of evidence by defense counsel, the author analyzes the possible negative consequences caused by verification of evidence. Resolve. On this basis, in order to verify the evidence of this provision, put forward some legislative proposals. The text of this paper is divided into four parts. The first part studies the current verification of evidence system related theoretical issues. Mainly from the theoretical dispute, the defendant's defense right several aspects to carry on the analysis, to the defense lawyer verifies the evidence the purpose, the theory circle's different viewpoint, verifies the evidence system to the criminal suspect, the defendant cross-examination right, The realization of defense right such as the right to know evidence, the smooth progress of trial and the necessity of cost saving are analyzed. The second part discusses the current situation of the verification evidence system, clarifies the practice status and the extraterritorial application of the verification evidence system in the region, and how to grasp the verification evidence system in practice. The third part mainly discusses the risk of verifying evidence system, including the practice risk of defense counsel and the risk of prosecution. In the fourth part, some suggestions are put forward to further refine and perfect the system of verifying evidence, and the limits of the scope of the verification of evidence by defense counsel, the emphasis of verification, the way of verifying evidence, and the assurance of time period are discussed. According to the discussion of the previous several parts, this paper puts forward some suggestions and ideas on how to refine the rules of verification evidence system, how to protect the witness, the information of the victim and the confidential measures of the defendant's statement in the same case.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：四川省社會科學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫謙;;關(guān)于修改后刑事訴訟法執(zhí)行情況的若干思考[J];人民檢察;2015年07期

2 孔文靜;;辯護律師刑事豁免權(quán)研究[J];嘉興學(xué)院學(xué)報;2015年03期

3 冀敏;;辯護律師會見狀況實證研究[J];中國司法;2014年11期

4 陳瑞華;;刑事訴訟中的有效辯護問題[J];蘇州大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2014年05期

5 劉文峰;張濤;;當(dāng)前我國辯護律師會見之問題[J];上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(法治論叢);2014年04期

6 朱孝清;;刑事訴訟法實施中的若干問題研究[J];中國法學(xué);2014年03期

7 陳瑞華;;論被告人的自主性辯護權(quán)——以“被告人會見權(quán)”為切入的分析[J];法學(xué)家;2013年06期

8 陳瑞華;;獨立辯護人理論的反思與重構(gòu)[J];政法論壇;2013年06期

9 龍宗智;;薄熙來案審判中的若干證據(jù)法問題[J];法學(xué);2013年10期

10 楊海生;;律師刑事辯護新的風(fēng)險[J];才智;2013年17期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前3條

1 田文昌;;犯罪嫌疑人、被告人對證據(jù)享有知情權(quán)[N];民主與法制時報;2011年

2 王新環(huán);;律師不宜向被告人披露同案犯口供[N];檢察日報;2010年

3 ;律師能否將復(fù)制的案卷提供給犯罪嫌疑人[N];檢察日報;2008年

，

本文編號：1973503