自從「全國司法改革會議」決議引入源自英美法之「交互詰問」制度，並且隨後在士林及苗栗兩個地方法院實驗辦理以來，各種研討會及學術研究已累積有一定的分量。在對於「交互詰問」制度之評價、以及應如何加以設計，亦不乏激烈的爭論。 回顧既有的被爭議的論題，其中對於「法官的澄清義務」及「檢察官的客觀性義務」之問題，應是最富有學理深度的議題。因為此兩項義務正是象徵歐陸刑事訴訟法文化的傳統核心理念，即法庭有調查事實的義務；而「交互詰問」制度卻正是對此傳統歐陸理念的正面挑戰，無怪乎會引起激烈的爭議。 而若要釐清爭議的癥結，根本的途徑應是去把握西洋思想史上長期分庭抗禮的「歐陸」及「英美」兩大思維方式陣營基本理念分歧，亦即「羅馬化的精神」典「盎格魯—薩克遜精神」之對立。也就是說，要掌握「交互詰問」制度移入歐陸法系地區所產生的困難，最根本的方式是由更高的文化源頭的差異性來觀照。而本文便是欲藉此探討進路，持平地評價兩大法律文化各自的長短，而後思考究竟應如何調和、解決二者之衝突、保留雙方的優點、填補雙方的偏頗及缺陷，以發現一條最能發現真相、實現正義的路徑。

Since the "National Juridical Reform Convention" resolved to adopt the legal engine of "Witness Examination", this new institution has been experimented in the regional courts of Shi-Lin and of Miau-Li. The discussions about this issue have resulted in numerous conferences and researches, and the evaluation of this new institution and the estimation on its practice in the future have aroused a series of vehement disputes. After reviewing all the subjects in dispute, it has become apparent that the"clarification duty of judge" and the "objectivity duty of prosecutor" should be the focus of theoretical significance, for both of them embody the traditional core ideal of the Euro-continental culture of criminal procedure. That is, the court is responsible for investigating the fact. On the contrary, the "Witness Examination" blatantly challenges this Euro­continental ideal. Therefore, the introduction of this new institution has incurred great disagreement. For solving this heatedly dispute, the researchers should grasp the perennial fundamental divergence of thinking models between Anglo­American and Euro-continental cultures. This opposition characterizes the spiritual discrepancy between the Anglo-Saxon and the Romanized Euro­continental cultures. The precondition for understanding the problems deriving from the introduction of "Witness Examination" into Euro­continental legal order is to underline the difference deeply rooted in their cultural origins. This paper aims at evaluating the two legal cultures impartially. Then it tries to reconcile the conflicts by keeping the merits and removing the weaknesses of each party in order that the way to discover the fact and to fulfill justice could be found. For solving this heatedly dispute, the researchers should grasp the perennial fundamental divergence of thinking models between Anglo­American and Euro-continental cultures. This opposition characterizes the spiritual discrepancy between the Anglo-Saxon and the Romanized Euro­continental cultures. The precondition for understanding the problems deriving from the introduction of "Witness Examination" into Euro­continental legal order is to underline the difference deeply rooted in their cultural origins. This paper aims at evaluating the two legal cultures impartially. Then it tries to reconcile the conflicts by keeping the merits and removing the weaknesses of each party in order that the way to discover the fact and to fulfill justice could be found.