:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:證據開示制度之研究:以美、日之比較為中心
書刊名:國立臺灣大學法學論叢
作者:邱鼎文
作者(外文):Chiu, Ting-wen
出版日期:2019
卷期:48:1
頁次:頁113-158
主題關鍵詞:證據開示對抗式訴訟體制閱卷預斷排除公平法院DiscoveryDisclosureAdversary systemFile examinationPrejudice eliminationFair trial
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:3
「刑事證據開示(Criminal Discovery or Disclosure)」制度,為對抗式訴訟體制中雙方當事人知悉他方或揭露己方證據資料的制度,目的在使當事人得於審前進行訴訟準備,避免訴訟突襲。我國刑事訴訟程序,雖沿襲歐陸法系卷證併送及閱卷體制,但多年來採行起訴狀一本主義之倡議,不絕於耳;去(106)年度司法改革國是會議之討論,也通過採行起訴狀一本主義之決議,而證據開示制度作為起訴狀一本主義的重要配套之一,也同樣成為法制改革的重點。特別是司法院在今(107)年1月底正式通過的「國民參與刑事審判法」草案,明文採行卷證不併送制度,並搭配證據開示與書狀先行等規定,未來可預期通過立法的可能性極高。因此,如何設計適合我國的證據開示制度,已成為當前必須研究之課題。以下,本文將以審前階段的證據開示制度為主題,探討美日兩國刑事證據開示制度的沿革(貳)及重要內容(參),進行比較與檢討(肆);最後,則針對我國現況,嘗試提出制度設計之方向性建議,並代結語(伍)。
The concept of "discovery" or "disclosure" in criminal procedure arises from Anglo-Saxon adversary system, which is set for preventing trial surprise and making pre-trial preparation. Although our criminal system bases upon civil law and file examination system, the proposal of Japanese indictment structure, which is the same as "Non Dossier-Producing System", has been discussed for decades. Non Dossier-Producing System is designed to eliminate the prejudgment of adjudicators and the quest for fair trial. Given the prosecutors are not allowed to send case files to court while indicting the criminals under Non Dossier-Producing System, there is the necessity to set a litigants-led procedure of discovering or disclosing litigation information in order to examine prosecutors' evidences from opposing views. Recently, Judicial Yuan announced the draft of "Citizen Participation in Criminal Procedure Act", which has incorporated the articles of Non Dossier-Producing System and criminal discovery. According to the draft, the prosecutors should not send the case files including evidences of documents or objects to court while indicting the criminals, so the defendant and his attorney could only receive evidences of the case from the prosecutors' discovery. For this reason, the draft adopted Japanese "Three-Phase Discovery Structure" to let the prosecutors disclose materials or information to the defendant. On the other hand, it also provided that the defendant should disclose his defense such as alibi or insanity when the prosecutors have completed his duty. Besides Japanese structure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and ABA Standards are also the basic and essential model of criminal discovery in the U.S.. Therefore, how to choose the proper model of criminal discovery has obviously become a material issue in the future. This article is intending to discuss pre-trial criminal discovery system by means of conducting comparative research on American and Japanese law, and trying to propose practice suggestion by reviewing the new draft and present system in Taiwan.
期刊論文
1.陳運財(20110200)。刑事訴訟制度改革動向的省思與展望。月旦法學教室,100,158-171。  延伸查詢new window
2.大澤裕(2014)。証拠開示制度。法律時報,86(10),46-52。  延伸查詢new window
3.吳冠霆(20080200)。論卷證併送制度與預斷排除。刑事法雜誌,52(1),63-92。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.辻裕教(2005)。刑事訴訟法等の一部を改正する法律(平成16年法律第62号)について。法曹時報,57(7),1-99。  延伸查詢new window
5.伊藤雅人、小島吉晴、岡慎一(2006)。裁判員制度座談会:法曹三者の構想。法学セミナー,623,8-22。  延伸查詢new window
6.松代剛枝(2004)。証拠開示理論と2004年刑事訴訟法改正--比較法的検討。関西大学論集,54(4),676-705。  延伸查詢new window
7.河村宜信(2008)。裁判員裁判における審理の在り方(1)--公判前整理手続--裁判官の立場から。刑事法ジャーナル,12,31-36。  延伸查詢new window
8.宮村啓太(2008)。裁判員裁判における審理の在り方(1)--公判前整理手続--弁護人の立場から。刑事法ジャーナル,12,46-52。  延伸查詢new window
9.斎藤司(2006)。ドイツにおける証拠開示請求権とその憲法的視点--2004年改正刑訴法に対する一つの視点として。法律時報,78(10)=974,68-76。  延伸查詢new window
10.勝田成治、団藤重光、羽山忠弘、樋口勝、橫井大三、松尾浩也(1974)。刑事訴訟法の制定過程。ジュリスト,551,30-58。  延伸查詢new window
11.斎藤司(2013)。再審における証拠開示。法学セミナー,698,22-25。  延伸查詢new window
12.Goldstein, A. S.(1960)。The State and the Accused: Balance of Advantage in Criminal Procedure。The Yale Law Journal,69(7),1149-1199。  new window
13.Rice, Paul R.(1974)。Criminal Defense Discovery: A Prelude to Justice or an Interlude for Abuse?。Mississippi Law Journal,45(4),887-913。  new window
14.Brennan, William J. Jr.(1963)。The Criminal Prosecution: Sporting Event or Quest for Truth?。Washington University Law Quarterly,1963(3),279-295。  new window
15.邱鼎文(20160700)。刑事證據開示制度之運作與發展--以日本法為中心。檢察新論,20,215-239。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.新時代刑事司法制度特別部會(2013)。「新時代の刑事司法制度に対する刑事法学者の意見」2013年9月10日。法律時報,85(12),131-144。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.LaFave, Wayne R.、Israel, Jerold H.、King, Nancy J.、Kerr, Orin S.(2009)。Criminal Procedure。West Publishing Company。  new window
2.指宿信(2014)。証拠開示と公正な裁判。東京:現代人文社。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.(2012)。公判前整理手続における証拠開示制度の導入経緯,http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000099549.pdf。  延伸查詢new window
2.(2012)。法制審議会新時代の司法制度特別部会第15回会議議事録,http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000105597.pdf。  延伸查詢new window
3.(2013)。時代に即した新たな刑事司法制度の基本構想,http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000106627.pdf。  延伸查詢new window
4.(2015)。刑事訴訟法の一部等を改正する法律案,http://www.moj.go.jp/keiji1/keiji14_00103.html。  延伸查詢new window
5.Innocence Project 25 Anniversary,https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/michael-morton/。  new window
圖書論文
1.酒卷匡(2009)。証拠開示制度の構造と機能。刑事証拠開示の理論と実務。東京:判例タイムズ社。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE