论共同被告人陈述

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

王忠龙

导师：

冯涛

导师单位：

西南政法大学

学位：

硕士

语种：

中文

关键词：

共同被告人;陈述;证人适格;分离审判;合并审理;分割论;制度完善

摘要：

共同被告人陈述之性质为何,事关共同被告人在刑事诉讼中诉讼角色的定位以及证据规则的适用,对于共同被告人的权利影响甚大。我国现行《刑事诉讼法》对此没有明确规定,相关司法解释也没有涉及,这就造成了学界对此问题的争论和司法实践中的无所适从。本文致力于共同被告人陈述的研究,从定性问题出发,循比较法的路径,在考察三个典型代表性国家的刑事诉讼法对共同被告人陈述之不同规定的基础上,致力解决共同被告人陈述性质、陈述方式等问题,提出在刑诉法再修改时完善共同被告人陈述制度的建议,并对建议之合理性和可行性进行论证。 本文共五部分,正文共三万六千字左右。 绪论部分主要介绍本文之研究动机、研究目的、研究方法以及最后要解决之主要问题。由于我国现行刑诉法对于共同被告人陈述制度规定的阙如,导致学术界和实务界存在“供述说”和“证人证言说”两种不同观点,对刑诉法第46条规定之被告人供述是否包括共同被告人陈述之争论也异常激烈。本文从实践中的这一问题出发,采用比较研究的方法,寻找与之相关的理论并对其进行研究,最后回到现实中,解决该问题。 第一部分为“本文所述共同被告人之界定”。本部分主要界定共同被告人的内涵和外延,说明本文在何种意义上使用“共同被告人”这一概念。笔者认为,共同被告人是刑事程序法上的概念,是指适用同一诉讼程序而合并起诉、审判的二人以上之被告人,其外延为:基于共同犯罪和牵连关系而被提起公诉,处于同一刑事审判程序中,且由自然人主体构成的共同被告人。本部分结合一个简单案例分析本文所述共同被告人之情形,在后文论述中还将用到该案例。 第二部分为“共同被告人陈述之性质”。本部分主要介绍我国学界关于共同被告人陈述存在的观点、争论,以及争论焦点之间的关系。笔者认为,针对共同被告人陈述,主要有两种观点,即“供述说”和“证人证言说”。支持各观点的理由集中在司法传统、诉讼角色、证据类型、被告人权利的保障、该观点在实务中的利弊等方面。争论焦点主要集中在两个方面:一是,共同被告人在刑事审判中可否互为证人;二是,在没有其他证据,只有共同被告人陈述且陈述一致时,能否仅凭共同被告人间陈述的一致性定案。上述两个问题之间具有两重关系,首先这是两个不同层面上的问题,其次前一个问题的解决和后一个问题的解决没有必然联系。 第三部分为“共同被告人陈述之比较法考察”。本部分考察美、德、日三国刑诉法对共同被告人陈述的规定,主要围绕三个问题展开,即该国是怎样规定的、该国为何如此规定、对我国该问题的解决有何借鉴意义。其中为何如此规定是本部分的重心,着重考察该国采行该种制度之理论原动力。笔者认为,关于共同被告人陈述之性质,美国、德国、日本三个国家刑诉法之规定各有不同。美国刑诉法规定共同被告人为证人适格,对是否作证有自主决定权。德国和日本刑诉法都规定共同被告人为证人不适格,但为了获取共同被告人之陈述证据,德国在界定共同被告人概念的基础上发展出了“暂时性分离程序”,日本则采“分离审判”与“合并审理”并存之双轨制。关于分离审判程序,美国法规定之初衷是为了救济合并审理可能对共同被告人造成之不利益,以权利保障为目的,其分离与否完全根据合并审理是否会对共同被告人造成偏见或使其蒙受不利益而定,分离非为必须。德国法之规定是为了合法获得共同被告人之陈述证据,是在平衡国家追诉和保障当事人权利的基础上作出的一种选择,持国家追诉主义立场,所以法院欲决定取得共同被告人之证言,则必须采取暂时性分离审判方式,使共同被告人转为证人。日本法之规定则以保护共同被告人之权利为宗旨,由法院在衡量“共同被告人之沉默权”与“被告人本人之对质诘问权”的具体必要性上自由裁量,决定权完全赋予法官。各国之规定和规定之缘由,对完善我国共同被告人陈述制度最大的启发是我们该采取哪种立场,换言之,我们改革或引进某种制度之理论原动力是什么,是为了保障共同被告人的权利,还是为了更好的追诉犯罪,或者是在这两者之间找一个恰当的平衡点,这个平衡点如何找,在哪里。 第四部分为“我国共同被告人陈述制度之完善”。该部分在前述三部分对共同被告人陈述制度进行考察分析的基础上,对刑诉法再修改时对该制度之完善给出了笔者的建议,并对该建议之合理性及可行性进行了论证。这是本文的重点,也是本文最终要解决的问题。笔者首先指出,对于共同被告人陈述之性质,应根据共同被告人陈述内容的不同将其分割为被告人供述或证人证言两种类型。该种观点既尊重了被告人不得为证人的司法传统,又符合现行刑诉法中被告人供述和证人证言证据类型划分的标准,是一种视具体情况灵活处理的解决方式。通过该分割理论,可以很清晰的界定刑诉法第46条的适用范围,解决司法实践中存在的争论。其次,对共同被告人陈述获得方式,笔者认为应借鉴日本刑诉法的做法,采合并审理和分离审判双轨制并存的处理方式。建议借鉴日本法的做法,主要是考虑到了中国的司法传统、日本法规定的优点、该种制度设计在中国司法实践中的实施情况等因素。笔者不赞同在分离审判时更换合议庭,这是因为我国并不采用陪审团审判,再加上目前以及相当长一段时间内审判实践中将普遍存在“默读审”或“案卷审”的审判方式,该种做法并不能达致美国法分离审判所欲达成之效果。然后,笔者强调基于完全信任法官的司法体制设置,建议将分离之目的定位为保障共同被告人之不自证其罪特权和对质诘问权。为确保被告人之权利得到真正的保障,在采行合并审理和分离审判并存的制度下,赋予共同被告人对法官决定的上诉权。如果共同被告人认为法官合并或分离之决定侵犯其不自证其罪特权或对质诘问权时可以提起上诉,二审法官对此做出判断,如果确实侵犯其相关权利,则应撤销原判,发回重审。

学科：

诉讼法学

提交日期：

2018-01-11

引用参考：

王忠龙. 论共同被告人陈述[D]. 西南政法大学,2008.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 论共同被告人陈述
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20051248
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 王忠龙
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2008
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 冯涛
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 共同被告人;;陈述;;证人适格;;分离审判;;合并审理;;分割论;;制度完善
  • dc.subject
  • Co-defendants;; statements;; competent;; sever the defendants' trial;; joint trial of separate case;; segmentable theory;; consummate system
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 共同被告人陈述之性质为何,事关共同被告人在刑事诉讼中诉讼角色的定位以及证据规则的适用,对于共同被告人的权利影响甚大。我国现行《刑事诉讼法》对此没有明确规定,相关司法解释也没有涉及,这就造成了学界对此问题的争论和司法实践中的无所适从。本文致力于共同被告人陈述的研究,从定性问题出发,循比较法的路径,在考察三个典型代表性国家的刑事诉讼法对共同被告人陈述之不同规定的基础上,致力解决共同被告人陈述性质、陈述方式等问题,提出在刑诉法再修改时完善共同被告人陈述制度的建议,并对建议之合理性和可行性进行论证。 本文共五部分,正文共三万六千字左右。 绪论部分主要介绍本文之研究动机、研究目的、研究方法以及最后要解决之主要问题。由于我国现行刑诉法对于共同被告人陈述制度规定的阙如,导致学术界和实务界存在“供述说”和“证人证言说”两种不同观点,对刑诉法第46条规定之被告人供述是否包括共同被告人陈述之争论也异常激烈。本文从实践中的这一问题出发,采用比较研究的方法,寻找与之相关的理论并对其进行研究,最后回到现实中,解决该问题。 第一部分为“本文所述共同被告人之界定”。本部分主要界定共同被告人的内涵和外延,说明本文在何种意义上使用“共同被告人”这一概念。笔者认为,共同被告人是刑事程序法上的概念,是指适用同一诉讼程序而合并起诉、审判的二人以上之被告人,其外延为:基于共同犯罪和牵连关系而被提起公诉,处于同一刑事审判程序中,且由自然人主体构成的共同被告人。本部分结合一个简单案例分析本文所述共同被告人之情形,在后文论述中还将用到该案例。 第二部分为“共同被告人陈述之性质”。本部分主要介绍我国学界关于共同被告人陈述存在的观点、争论,以及争论焦点之间的关系。笔者认为,针对共同被告人陈述,主要有两种观点,即“供述说”和“证人证言说”。支持各观点的理由集中在司法传统、诉讼角色、证据类型、被告人权利的保障、该观点在实务中的利弊等方面。争论焦点主要集中在两个方面:一是,共同被告人在刑事审判中可否互为证人;二是,在没有其他证据,只有共同被告人陈述且陈述一致时,能否仅凭共同被告人间陈述的一致性定案。上述两个问题之间具有两重关系,首先这是两个不同层面上的问题,其次前一个问题的解决和后一个问题的解决没有必然联系。 第三部分为“共同被告人陈述之比较法考察”。本部分考察美、德、日三国刑诉法对共同被告人陈述的规定,主要围绕三个问题展开,即该国是怎样规定的、该国为何如此规定、对我国该问题的解决有何借鉴意义。其中为何如此规定是本部分的重心,着重考察该国采行该种制度之理论原动力。笔者认为,关于共同被告人陈述之性质,美国、德国、日本三个国家刑诉法之规定各有不同。美国刑诉法规定共同被告人为证人适格,对是否作证有自主决定权。德国和日本刑诉法都规定共同被告人为证人不适格,但为了获取共同被告人之陈述证据,德国在界定共同被告人概念的基础上发展出了“暂时性分离程序”,日本则采“分离审判”与“合并审理”并存之双轨制。关于分离审判程序,美国法规定之初衷是为了救济合并审理可能对共同被告人造成之不利益,以权利保障为目的,其分离与否完全根据合并审理是否会对共同被告人造成偏见或使其蒙受不利益而定,分离非为必须。德国法之规定是为了合法获得共同被告人之陈述证据,是在平衡国家追诉和保障当事人权利的基础上作出的一种选择,持国家追诉主义立场,所以法院欲决定取得共同被告人之证言,则必须采取暂时性分离审判方式,使共同被告人转为证人。日本法之规定则以保护共同被告人之权利为宗旨,由法院在衡量“共同被告人之沉默权”与“被告人本人之对质诘问权”的具体必要性上自由裁量,决定权完全赋予法官。各国之规定和规定之缘由,对完善我国共同被告人陈述制度最大的启发是我们该采取哪种立场,换言之,我们改革或引进某种制度之理论原动力是什么,是为了保障共同被告人的权利,还是为了更好的追诉犯罪,或者是在这两者之间找一个恰当的平衡点,这个平衡点如何找,在哪里。 第四部分为“我国共同被告人陈述制度之完善”。该部分在前述三部分对共同被告人陈述制度进行考察分析的基础上,对刑诉法再修改时对该制度之完善给出了笔者的建议,并对该建议之合理性及可行性进行了论证。这是本文的重点,也是本文最终要解决的问题。笔者首先指出,对于共同被告人陈述之性质,应根据共同被告人陈述内容的不同将其分割为被告人供述或证人证言两种类型。该种观点既尊重了被告人不得为证人的司法传统,又符合现行刑诉法中被告人供述和证人证言证据类型划分的标准,是一种视具体情况灵活处理的解决方式。通过该分割理论,可以很清晰的界定刑诉法第46条的适用范围,解决司法实践中存在的争论。其次,对共同被告人陈述获得方式,笔者认为应借鉴日本刑诉法的做法,采合并审理和分离审判双轨制并存的处理方式。建议借鉴日本法的做法,主要是考虑到了中国的司法传统、日本法规定的优点、该种制度设计在中国司法实践中的实施情况等因素。笔者不赞同在分离审判时更换合议庭,这是因为我国并不采用陪审团审判,再加上目前以及相当长一段时间内审判实践中将普遍存在“默读审”或“案卷审”的审判方式,该种做法并不能达致美国法分离审判所欲达成之效果。然后,笔者强调基于完全信任法官的司法体制设置,建议将分离之目的定位为保障共同被告人之不自证其罪特权和对质诘问权。为确保被告人之权利得到真正的保障,在采行合并审理和分离审判并存的制度下,赋予共同被告人对法官决定的上诉权。如果共同被告人认为法官合并或分离之决定侵犯其不自证其罪特权或对质诘问权时可以提起上诉,二审法官对此做出判断,如果确实侵犯其相关权利,则应撤销原判,发回重审。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • The nature of the statements of co-defendant determines his role in the criminal proceedings, as well as the application of the evidence rule. Thus it affects greatly on the co-defendants' rights. There is no provision about it in our Criminal Procedure Law and interpretation, that's result in the dispute in the academia and at loose ends in the trial. So this dissertation dedicates to study the system of the statements of co-defendants. It will begin at study of the nature of the statements of co-defendants, solving the problem of how to ascertain the nature of the statements and how method of statements to be obtained bases on researching of the provisions of three representative countries. In the end the article will put forward the suggestions of consummate our system of statements of co-defendants, and give the reasoning of the consummate. There are five parts in the dissertation, which about 36,000 words. The introduction part will introduce the motive, aim, study method and the problems which will be solved in the article. It points out that, because there is no provision about the statements of co-defendants in our Criminal Procedure Law and interpretation, that's results in the dispute in the academia and justice scopes. There are two theories about this question, confession of defendant or testimony of witnesses. So the article dedicates to solve the problem which from the justice practice scopes. First part: The Definition of Co-defendants. In this part it will introduce the connotation and extension of the co-defendants. It points out that the conception of co-defendants which the article use is one of the conceptions which usually used in criminal procedure, it indicates that the two or more persons who are jointly charged in the same public prosecution. It contents that, the defendants who are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses, all defendants need be charged in same court, and also the defendant is a nature person. Second part: The Nature of Statements of Co-defendants. In this part it will introduce the two contrary theories of the nature of co-defendants in academia, the theory of confession of defendant and the theory of testimony of witnesses. And will analyze the relation of two arguments. The arguments focus on two points, first is whether or not the co-defendants competent for the prosecution, second is whether the co-defendant can be convicted if there no other evidence but co-defendants' statements only. There are double relations above, first, the two questions on two tiers, and second, the solving of the two questions has no necessity connection. Third part: Comparative Researching of the Statements of Co-defendants. In this part it will research the provisions about the statements of co-defendants in three countries, resolve three questions, that is what's the provision of that country, the reason of this provision had to be instituted, the illumination to consummate our system. Above all, the reason researching is the keystone. It points out that, there are varies provisions about statements of co-defendants in American, German, or Japan. According to The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, a defendant is competent to be a witness on his own behalf, he has the right to decided whether or not to go to the box and give testimony. But according to the Criminal Procedure of German and Criminal Procedure of Japan, the co-defendant is not competent to be a witness even on his own behalf. For obtain the statements evidence form co-defendants, the German procedure developed the temporarily separate trials, the Japan procedure adopt the separate trials and jointly trials coexistent. According to American law, if the joinder of offense or defendants in an indictment, an information, or a consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants' trials. That provides relief from prejudicial joinder. So sever or not bases on the necessary for protect the defendant's right and the prejudice the defendant may be faced. The method of German law has adopts aim to get the evidence legally. It's a choice balanced the necessary of charge the defendant and protect the defendant' right. According to that method, the court can find out the reality of a case in one hand, and protect the defendant' rights perfectly in another. The method of Japan law has adopts aim to protect the defendant' rights, the court base on balance the necessary of protect the defendant' Right to keep silence and the Right to be confronted with the Witnesses against him decided to sever the trial or not. The most illumination to consummate our system of statements of co-defendants is that what is our aim of the system will adopt, we should find out the balance point, the point which balanced the protecting of defendant' rights and find out the reality of a case. Fourth part: The Suggestions of Consummate our System of Statements of Co-defendants. On the base of comprehensive analysis the system about statements of the co-defendants in aforementioned three parts, the article presented the suggestions to consummate the system in the coming of Re-amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law, and the author also gives the feasibility and reasonableness of the proposals. This is the most important part in the dissertation. It points out that, about the nature of the statements of co-defendants, the author suggested to segment to two types, confession of defendant or testimony of witnesses, base on the statements' content. The segmentable theory respect the traditional view of the defendant is not competent to be a witness in criminal procedure, and it also be within the standards of ascertain the evidence type upon the Criminal Procedural Law. It is a flexible method to deal with the problem depending on the specific circumstances. The adoption of the segmentable theory can be very clearly defined the application of section 46 of the Criminal Procedural Law, resolving the disputes in judicial practice. The method of statements obtained suggested learning from Japan, adopts the style of the separate trials and jointly trials coexistent. The reason of suggest learning from Japan, mainly taking into account the factors of China's judicial tradition, the advantages of the type which Japan adopts, and the implementation of the new system constituted. The reason disagree with the replacement of the court after the severs is that China does not use jury trial, and in a long time in trial practice will prevail "silence trial" or " archives trial", adopts the method of replacement of the court can not attain the effect American law achieved. Based on the judicial system settings on full confide in the judge, the purpose of sever the defendants' trial positioning for the protecting the defendant's Privilege against self-incrimination and Right to be confronted with the Witnesses against him. For ensure that the defendant's rights to be real protected, endue the defendant right to appeal if he consider the judge' decisions infringe his rights. The appeal court should remand the case to the court which originally tried it for retrial if the first trial judge' decisions infringe his rights.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.2
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2008-04-01
回到顶部