當多數人共同犯罪時，此多數人間之相互指控雖可歸類為供述證據，究應如何認定其證據地位，應依何種法則判斷其證據容許性，長久以來卻存在令人困惑之疑慮。為能詳明共犯自白之證據地位，並期於刑事審判實務中正確適用共犯自白，因此，本文擬以釋字第582號解釋：「刑事審判上之共同被告，係為訴訟經濟等原因，由檢察官或自訴人合併或追加起訴，或由法院合併審判所形成，其間各別被告及犯罪事實仍獨立存在。故共同被告對其他共同被告之案件而言，為被告以外之第三人，本質上屬於證人，自不能因案件合併關係而影響其他共同被告原享有之上開憲法上權利。」為基礎，釐清與此爭議相關之疑義。又因我國已於2003年制定傳聞法則，關於美國傳聞法制如何處理此一爭議，亦即共犯自白在美國證據法上之地位為何，本文亦將自美國聯邦最高法院判決之說理予以分析。本文主張釋字第582號解釋一概否認共犯自白證據能力之觀點，因存在類型化不足之弊病，以至於其結論作成後實務上仍出現不同意見衝突。

When a crime was committed by multiple defendants, how to identify the evidence status of one defendant's confession to his or her co-defendant has long been confusing. To clarify the evidence status of the co-defendant's confession so that the court would correctly apply it at trial, this study would base on the Grand Justice Council Interpretation of No. 582, which held: ＂A criminal co-defendant exists only for reasons like economy of lawsuits, which results either from the merger or addition of complaints filed by a public or private prosecutor, or from the merger of trials initiated by a court of law. The respective defendants and the facts related to their respective crimes, however, still exist independently of each other. Therefore, a co-defendant is, in essence, a third-party witness in the case concerning another co-defendant. Thus, the merger of cases should not affect the aforesaid constitutional rights of such other co-defendant,＂ to sweep relative disputes. Since the hearsay rules was adopted in 2003 in Taiwan, this study would also base its analysis on how the out-of-court confession of a co-defendant works in the American hearsay system and how courts in the United States apply it. At the end, this study concludes with asserting that insufficient classifications of the co-defendant's out-of-court confession in the Grand Justice Council Interpretation of No. 582 results in legal conflicts regarding how to apply this judicial interpretation at trial.