本文選題：證人資格 + 異議��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：具有證人資格是證人提供證言的前提和基礎(chǔ)。在實務(wù)中證人適格是較為普遍的情況，但仍有部分人由于欠缺感知、記憶和表達能力而喪失作證能力。由于受多方面因素制約，我國在立法上尚未明確證人資格出現(xiàn)爭議時的具體審查機制，在司法實務(wù)中對證人資格的審查判斷也較為混亂，目前粗疏的證據(jù)規(guī)則難以對證人資格審查發(fā)揮應(yīng)有引導(dǎo)和規(guī)范作用。隨著司法改革的深入，有必要對我國現(xiàn)行證人資格審查機制進行反思和梳理，學(xué)習(xí)吸收域外法治國家和地區(qū)的先進經(jīng)驗，構(gòu)建我國的證人資格審查程序。 本文共計2萬余字，除去引言和結(jié)語以外，共分五個部分。 文章的第一部分對證人資格及其審查程序進行了介紹。首先介紹了英美法系國家對證人資格認識不斷變遷的歷史，由早期對證人資格做出諸多限制，到如今在法律上推定每一個人都具有證人資格。為避免不適格的證人對程序正義和實體公正造成的沖擊，賦予訴訟雙方可就證人資格提出異議的權(quán)利，由法官對證人資格的有無做出裁決。接下來對證人資格審查程序進行了界定。證人資格審查程序，是指當訴訟一方就證人資格提出有效異議時，由法官在相關(guān)人員的參與下，就證人資格的有無做出裁定的程序。 文章的第二部分對英美法系的證人資格審查程序的運行機制進行了考察。介紹了證人資格審查程序的啟動方式、法院的受理和審查以及相關(guān)的救濟措施。程序的啟動以訴訟一方就證人資格提出異議且附有根據(jù)和理由為前提。程序的參加者一般包括法官、書記員、證人及控辯雙方等相關(guān)人員。明確規(guī)定由對證人資格提出異議的一方承擔證明責任，且必須達到優(yōu)勢證據(jù)的證明標準。訴訟另一方也可就證人資格爭議問題提供相關(guān)證據(jù)予以反駁。為維護控辯雙方的合法權(quán)益，英美法系規(guī)定了對裁決結(jié)果進行復(fù)查和救濟機制。 文章的第三部分對英美法系證人資格審查程序進行了評析。對抗制是證人資格審查程序得以運行的基石，沒有對抗制的理念和機制，控辯雙方無法就證人資格問題展開交鋒。陪審制的存在，保障了公民參與訴訟的權(quán)利，體現(xiàn)了司法的民主性和參與性。但是為避免由普通民眾組成的陪審團遭受不適格證人的誤導(dǎo)，在制度上確立了證人資格審查程序，預(yù)先排除不適格的證人。人權(quán)保障能夠理念，促使控方追訴犯罪的行為必須符合法律的規(guī)定，只能以適格證人做出的證言作為指控犯罪的基礎(chǔ)。正當法律程序要求程序的進行必須符合正義，不僅僅能夠保障被告人的權(quán)利，還要切實維護好證人的權(quán)益。 文章的第四部分是對我國現(xiàn)行證人資格審查機制的反思。我國在立法上尚未明確證人資格審查的具體程序，實務(wù)中的做法也較為混亂。由于受重打擊、輕保護思維的影響，缺乏人權(quán)保障和程序正義的理念，規(guī)則的缺乏和理念的缺位無法對公安司法機關(guān)的取證行為進行有效規(guī)制，導(dǎo)致大量證人資格有爭議的證人在未經(jīng)資格審查之后直接進入法庭，嚴重影響了司法公正和程序正義。 文章的第五部分論述了我國的證人資格審查程序的構(gòu)建。在宏觀構(gòu)架上，繼續(xù)強調(diào)和貫徹每一個人都具有證人資格的理念。在具體的制度構(gòu)建上，明確了程序的啟動方式、參與人、證明責任和標準以及裁決的結(jié)果的效力。為構(gòu)建科學(xué)合理的證人資格審查程序，還需相關(guān)的配套機制，需要強化證人出庭，構(gòu)建合理的證據(jù)開示制度以及完善我國庭前會議制度。證人出庭是對證人資格進行審查的邏輯前提，證人不出庭對其資格進行審查就無從談起，更遑論證人資格審查程序的構(gòu)建。證據(jù)開示制度的存在，不明能夠明確雙方爭議的焦點，還可在最早的時刻對不適格的證人進行彈劾。庭前會議制度的完善，可以在庭前階段解決證人資格的爭議，，不僅能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)程序正義，還可提高訴訟效率。
[Abstract]:The qualification of witnesses is the premise and basis of testimony provided by witnesses. In practice, the case of witness is more common, but there are still some people who have lost their ability to testify because of lack of perception, memory and expression. Because of the constraints of many factors, our country has not clearly defined the specific mechanism for the examination of the dispute when the witness is disputed. In the judicial practice, the examination and judgment of the qualification of the witness is also confused. The present Rules of evidence are difficult to play the role of guiding and standardizing the examination of the qualification of the witness. With the deepening of the judicial reform, it is necessary to rethink and comb the current Witness Qualification Examination Mechanism in our country and learn to absorb the advanced countries and regions under the rule of law. Experience, construction of China's Witness Qualification Review process.
This article has a total of 2 thousands words, excluding the introduction and conclusion, which is divided into five parts.
The first part of the article introduces the qualification of witness and its review procedure. First, it introduces the history of the constant change in the recognition of the qualification of the witness in Anglo American legal system, and makes a lot of restrictions on the qualification of the witness in the early days, and by now it is presumed that everyone has the qualification of witnesses. The impact of body justice gives the litigant the right to raise objection to the qualification of the witness, and the judge makes a verdict on the qualification of the witness. Next, the procedure of the examination of the qualification of the witness is defined. The procedure of the examination of the witness's qualification refers to the participation of the judge in the relevant personnel when the party has put forward an effective objection to the qualification of the witness. At the same time, there is a procedure to make a ruling on the qualification of a witness.
The second part of the article examines the operating mechanism of the procedure for examining the qualification of witness in Anglo American legal system. It introduces the starting way of the procedure for examining the qualification of the witness, the acceptance and review of the court and the related relief measures. The addition person generally includes the judges, the secretaries, the witnesses and the accusation and the parties concerned. It clearly stipulates that one party that raises the objection to the qualification of the witness shall bear the burden of proof, and must meet the standard of proof of the superiority evidence. The other party of the lawsuit can also refute the evidence of the dispute on the qualification of witnesses. The Anglo American law system provides a mechanism for reviewing and remediing the award.
The third part of the article reviews the procedure of Witness Qualification Examination in Anglo American law system. Confrontation system is the cornerstone of the procedure of witness qualification examination, without the concept and mechanism of the antagonism system, the two sides can not fight the question of the qualification of the witness. The existence of the jury system ensures the rights of the citizens to participate in the lawsuit and embodies the people of the judiciary. But in order to avoid the misleading witness of the jury made up by the ordinary people, the witness qualification examination procedure has been established in the system to preclude the discomfortable witness. The human rights guarantee is the idea that the prosecution's prosecution of the crime must be in accordance with the law of law and can only be made with the testimony of the witness. As the basis of the crime of accusation, due process of law requires that the proceeding must conform to justice, not only to guarantee the rights of the accused, but also to safeguard the rights and interests of the witness.
The fourth part of the article is to reflect on the present mechanism of the examination of the qualification of witness in our country. China has not clearly defined the specific procedure of the examination of the qualification of witnesses in our country, and the practice in practice is also confused. Because of the heavy blow, the influence of light protection on thinking, the lack of the concept of human rights and procedural justice, the lack of rules and the absence of the idea of the concept can not be found. The effective regulation of forensic behavior of the public security judiciary has led to a large number of witnesses who have disputed qualifications to enter the court directly after the unqualified examination, which has seriously affected the judicial justice and procedural justice.
The fifth part of the article discusses the construction of the procedure for examining the qualification of the witness in our country. On the macro framework, we continue to emphasize and carry out the concept of Witness Qualification for each individual. In the construction of a specific system, the starting mode of the procedure, the participants, the burden of proof and the standard and the effectiveness of the outcome of the adjudication are clarified. The procedure for examination of the qualification of witnesses needs relevant supporting mechanisms. It is necessary to strengthen the appearance of witnesses, construct a reasonable evidence opening system and improve the system of pre court meetings in our country. The witness appearing in court is the logical premise for the examination of the qualification of witnesses. The witness does not appear in court for its qualification, let alone the procedure for examination of the qualification of witnesses. The existence of the evidence opening system can not clearly define the focus of the dispute and impeach the disqualified witnesses at the earliest time. The perfection of the system of pre court meeting can solve the dispute of the qualification of the witness in front of the court, which can not only achieve procedural justice, but also improve the efficiency of the lawsuit.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D925.13

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 范愉;;訴訟的價值、運行機制與社會效應(yīng)——讀奧爾森的《訴訟爆炸》[J];北大法律評論;1998年01期

2 趙珊珊;;制度建構(gòu)的進步與立法技術(shù)的缺憾——刑事訴訟法修正案“證人制度”評述[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2011年06期

3 趙信會;謝庭樹;;證據(jù)可采性認定的自由裁量及其限制——美國百年證據(jù)制度改革的啟示[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2012年02期

4 孫長永;;刑事證據(jù)開示制度的價值新探[J];人民檢察;2009年08期

5 屈芳;李麗;;論兒童作證的價值沖突與選擇[J];山西青年管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年02期

6 湯茂定;李建明;;論我國刑辯律師有效辯護的制度保障[J];深圳大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2012年03期

7 姚莉,吳丹紅;證人資格問題重述[J];中國刑事法雜志;2002年05期

8 劉國慶;;刑事訴訟中的異議權(quán)問題研究[J];中國刑事法雜志;2010年02期

本文編號：1780091