有關為受判決人之利益聲請再審制度，我國學界對此論述不多，本文先就我國實務、學說略為整理，再引用美國相關法律、實務、學說互為比較，發現美國法准許再審之新證據種類較我國寬廣，例如美國法在特定情形下容准以第三人自白、證人撤銷證詞、請求 DNA 測試等為再審之理由。再者，美國法新規性要件無似我國之嚴格、確實性要件之法理明確且對聲請人漸趨有利、審理程序開明而重人權保障，處處顯示美國較我國更為「慎刑」。本文提出許多與實務不同之見解，希能成為立法者修法的參考，也祈請最高法院能掌握國際人權趨勢，與時俱進，廢棄舊判例，建設臺灣為人權大國。

After his judgment of conviction is final, the defendant has the right to petition for the Retrial in Taiwan if the facts in the judgment were wrongly decided because of several specific grounds. Although the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) provides that newly discovered evidence is one of the grounds, the Supreme Court has limited its scope to a very narrowly drawn area. The CCP is also unclear about the burden of proof in the Retrial procedure. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court imposes a very heavy burden on the petitioners, the convicted defendants. In addition, when a convicted defendant petitions for the Retrial, the CCP does not requires a hearing in any circumstances. In many cases, the petition of Retrial is dismissed without a hearing. The paper firstly analyzes Taiwan Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the scope of newly discovered evidence, burden of proof, and hearing procedure. For comparison, the paper then introduces the American laws and cases regarding these relevant issues. The paper discusses with details whether the third party’s confession, witness’s recantation, and the DNA test could be the grounds for Retrial. Borrowing the American theories and experiences, the paper reexamines Taiwan’s provisions in the CCP and Supreme Court’s decisions relevant to the Retrial procedure. In the end, this paper makes several proposals and intends to reform the current the Retrial procedure in order to prevent more innocent people from being wrongly convicted without a just remedy.