证据规则的法典化——美国《联邦证据规则》的制定及对我国证据立法的启示
易延友; 1:清华大学 摘要(Abstract)：

美国《联邦证据规则》是法典化运动背景下制定的一部成功的证据法典,其法典化的基础是存在着区别于其他实体性和程序性规则的独特证据规则:证据的可采性规则。该法典体现了韦伯所说的法律的高度形式理性化,并且在实施过程中在法律的统一性等方面取得了明显的成效。这些成就激发了中国的法学者在证据规则法典化方面的努力。

关键词(KeyWords)： 证据规则;;可采性;;形式理性;;法典化;;移植

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 教育部人文社科重点研究基地重大项目“英美法系与西方法制文明研究”(项目批准号:06JJD820014)的证据法子项目最终成果

作者(Author): 易延友;

Email:


参考文献(References)： [1]Barbara C.Salken,To Codify Or Not To Codify-That Is The Question:AStudy Of NewYork's Efforts To Enact An Evidence Code,58Brooklyn L.Rev.641(1992),pp.643-644.[2]关于法定证据制度在欧洲大陆的起源、内容及消亡的历史,参见:A Esmein,AHistory of Continental Criminal Procedure:With Spe-cial Reference to France,The Lawbook Exchange Ltd,2000,pp.617-630.[3]有关印度证据法的起草经过及内容,参见:James F.Stephen,ADigest of the Lawof Evidence,second edition reprint,St.Louis,F.H.Thomas and Company,1879.[4]从各种有关证据法学的典籍所论述和引用的情况来看,英国的第1部与证据规则有关的制定法应当是于1845年通过的《证据法》(Evidence Act);此后,英国于1851年和1938年两次通过《证据法》(Evidence Act);1853年通过了《证据修正法》(Evidence Amend-ment Act);1869年,通过了《证据再行修正法》(Evidence Further Amendment Act);这些法律应当是有关证据规则的一般规定。除此以外,英国还存在着大量通过不同角度规范证据规则的法律。其中包括《文书证据法》(Documentary Evidence Act)、《誓证法》(Oaths Act)、《刑事证据法》(Criminal Evidence Act)、《刑事司法法》(Criminal Justice Act)、《警察与刑事证据法》(Police and Criminal Evidence Act)、《刑事司法与公共秩序法》(Criminal Justice and Public Order Act1994)、《少年司法与刑事证据法》(Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act1999)、《民事证据法》(Civil Evidence Act1998)等。比较详细的英国证据制定法的清单,可参见Hodge M.Malek,et el,Phipson on Evi-dence,Sweet&Maxwell,2005.[5]Charles M.Cook,The American Codification Movement,(1981),pp.6-9.[1]Christopher B.Mueller&Laird C.Kirkpatrick,Evidence Under The Rules:Text,Cases,and Problems,Little Brown and Company,1988,p.3.[2]Kenneth Williams,Do We Really Need the Federal Rules of Evidence?74N.Dak.L.Rev.1,1998,pp.2-3;Christopher B.Muel-ler&Laird C.Kirkpatrick,supra note,p.4.[3]Kenneth Williams,supra note,pp.2-3.[4]Christopher B.Mueller&Laird C.Kirkpatrick,supra note,p.4.[5]有关《联邦证据规则》的立法过程,参阅:Glen Weissenberger,The Supreme Court And The Interpretation Of The Federal Rules Of Ev-idence,53Ohio St.L.J.1307(1992),pp.1327-1328;Paul C.Giannelli,Understanding Evidence,LexisNexis,2003,pp.8-10;Kenneth Williams,supra note,pp.4-5.[1]Edward R.Becker and Aviva Orenstein,The Federal Rules of Evidence After Sixteen Years-The Effect of"Plain Meaning"Juris-prudence,the Need for an Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence,and Suggestions for Selective Revision of the Rules,60Geo.Wash.L.Rev.857(1992).[2]相关论述参见Paul R.Rice,Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence:Tending to the Past and Pretending for the Future?53Hastings L.J.817(2002),pp.818-819.[3]Fed.R.Evid.,Article I,Rule101-106.[4]Fed.R.Evid.,Article II,Rule201.[5]Fed.R.Evid.,Article III,Rule301-302.[6]Fed.R.Evid.,Article IV,Rule401-415.[7]Fed.R.Evid.,Article V,Rule501.[1]Fed.R.Evid.,Article VI,Rule601-615.[2]Fed.R.Evid.,Article VII,Rule701-706.[3]Fed.R.Evid.,Article VIII,Rule801-807.[4]Fed.R.Evid.,Article IX,Rule901-903.[5]Fed.R.Evid.,Article X,Rule1001-1008.[6]Fed.R.Evid.,Article XI,Rule1101-1103.《联邦证据规则》在中国已经有多个中文译本,包括较早的卞建林译:“美国联邦证据规则”,载白绿铉、卞建林译:《美国联邦民事诉讼规则、证据规则》,中国法制出版社2000年版。[7]Stephen A.Saltzburg,Kenneth R.Redden,Federal Rules of Evidence Manual,second edition,The Michie Company LawPublishers,1977,p.1.[1]例如,《联邦证据规则》407规定,在一个事件引起伤害之后,如果采取措施能够降低伤害或损害发生的可能性,则该措施不得被用于证明疏忽、有责行为或产品缺陷等。Fed.R.Evid.,Rule407.这一规则的目的就是鼓励人们在事件发生后立即采取相应的救济措施,为此特别规定采取此类措施这一事实不得被用来证明采取措施的一方对于伤害或损害的发生负有责任。[2]《联邦证据规则》虽然也提到了联邦宪法——Fed.R.Evid.,Rule402——但也只是附带性地提到,具体因违反宪法而取得的证据是否应当排除以及为何应当排除,在法律上由宪法修正案决定,在理论上由宪法学者和刑事诉讼法学者研究。[3]“My object in it has been to separate the subject of evidence from other branches of the lawwith which it has commonly been mixed up;to reduce it into a compact systematic form,distributed according to the natural division of the subject-matter;and to compass into precise definte rules,illustrated,when necessary,by examples,such cases and statutes as properly relate to the subject matter so limited and arranged.”James F.Stephen,A Digest of the Law of Evidence,second edition reprint,St.Louis,F.H.Thomas and Company,1879,at Introduction,p.viii.[4]James F.Stephen,id,at xiii.[5]William Twining,Rethinking Evidence:Exploratory Essays,Northwestern University Press,1994,p.55.[1]有关传闻法则中的具体规则,可参看:Fed.R.Evid.,Rule801-807;中文介绍及评论,可参见易延友:“传闻法则:历史、规则与原理——兼对我国传闻法则移植论之反思”,《清华法学》2008年第3期。[1]Edward J.Imwinkelried,The Worst Evidence Principle:The Best Hypothesis as to the Logical Structure of Evidence Law,46U.Miami L.Rev.1069,1069-1071(1992).[2]James F.Stephen,ADigest of the Lawof Evidence,second edition reprint,St.Louis,F.H.Thomas and Company,1879,at Introduc-tion,p.viii,xix.[3]波洛克、塞耶等均对史蒂芬的这一观点提出了批评。参见William Twining,Rethinking Evidence:Exploratory Essays,Northwestern University Press,1994,p.85,note99.波洛克甚至说史蒂芬的观点是“一个光辉的错误”。同前,note108.[4]威格默的观点,参看John Henry Wigmore,Evidence in Trials at Common Law,Peter Tillers revised,Little Brown and Company,1983,pp.605and infra;塞耶的观点,参看本文第5部分的介绍及相关注释。[5]例如,Christopher B.Mueller&Laird C.Kirkpatrick:“mistrust of juries is the single overriding reason for the lawof evidence”,in Evi-dence Under The Rules:Text,Cases,and Problems,Little Brown and Company,1988,p.1.[6]Dale A.Nance,The Best Evidence Principle,Iowa Law Review,January,1988.[7]Fed.R.Evid.,Rule1001,1002,1003.[8]G.Gilbert,The Law Of Evidence3-4(1st ed.1754).转引自:Dale A.Nance,su[ra note,p.253.[1]Dale A.Nance,supra note,pp.232-233.[2]Dale A.Nance,supra note,p.233.[3]William Twining,supra note,pp.72-74.[4]Ferrara&Dimercurio v.St.Paul Mercury Ins.Co.,240F.3d1,6(1st Cir..2001);Jack B.Weinstein,Margaret A.Berger,Wienstein’s Evidence Manual Student Edition,6th Edition,LexisNexis,2003,at6.01[5][a].[5]Irving Younger,Symposium:The Federal Rules Of Evidence:Introduction,12Hofstra L.Rev.251(1984),p.252.[6]L.Kivin Wroth,The Federal Rules of Evidence in the States:ATen-Year Perspective,30VILL.L.REV.1315,1318(1985),p.1321;Kenneth Graham,State Adaptation of the Federal Rules:The Pros and Cons,43OKLA.L.REV.293,312n.87(1990),p.298.[7]See,Margaret A.Berger,The Federal Rules of Evidence;Defining and Refining the Goals of Codification,12HOFSTRA L.REV.255,258-59(1984),note4.[1]Paul C.Giannelli,Understanding Evidence,LexisNexis,2003,p.10.[2]Stephen A.Saltzburg,The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Quality of Practice in Federal Courts,27CLEV.ST.L.REV.173,178(1978),p.189.[3]试比较:Vincent v.Thompson,377N.Y.S.2d118(N.Y.App.Div.1975)(该案判定:间接的禁止反言原则在州最高法院早先的判决中并不存在),Letendre v.Hartford Accident&Indem.Co.,236N.E.2d467(N.Y.1968)(该案判定先前的不一致陈述用于证明其内容之真实性时具有可采性)与People v.Raja,433N.Y.S.2d200(Sup.Ct.1980)(该案判定先前的不一致陈述只有在用于弹劾时才具有可采性).See,Faust F.Rossi,The Federal Rules Of Evidence In Retrospect:Observations From The1995Aals Evidence Section:The Federal Rules Of Evidence-Past,Present,And Future:A Twenty-Year Perspective,28Loy.L.A.L.Rev.1271(1995),p.1275.[4]See C.Mueller&L.Kirkpatrick,Evidence Under The Rules4(3d ed.1996),p.27;在纽约,至今仍然没有制定成文的证据法典,但是其法院经常援引《联邦证据规则》的规定以判决当前的案件。See,e.g.,People v.Settles,46N.Y.2d154,169,385N.E.2d612,620,412N.Y.S.2d874,883(1978);People v.Watson,100A.D.2d452,464,474N.Y.S.2d978,986(2d Dep't1984).[5]Saltzburg,supra note,p184.[6]Jack B.Weinstein,Margaret A.Berger,Wienstein’s Evidence Manual Student Edition,6th Edition,LexisNexis,2003.[7]Dennis D.Prater,Christine M.Arguello,Daniel J.Capra,Michael M.Martin and Stephen A.Saltzburg,Evidence:The Objection Method,Michie Law Publishers,1997.[8]Margaret A.Berger,The Federal Rules of Evidence:Defining and Refining the Goals of Codification,12HOFSTRAL.REV.255,257(1984).[1]Frye v.United States,293F.1013(D.C.Cir.1923).[2]Daubert v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,Inc,Supreme Court of the United States,1993,509U.S.578.关于弗赖伊案件和多波特案件的具体论述,可参阅易延友:“英美证据法上的专家证言制度及其面临的挑战”,载《环球法律评论》,2007年第3期。[3]Glen Weissenberger,The Supreme Court and the Interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence,53Ohio St.L.J.1307(1992);Glen Weissenberger,Are the Federal Rules of Evidence a Statute?55Ohio St.L.J.393(1994);韦森伯格的观点主要是:《联邦证据规则》只是对普通法上规则的重述,它并未终止法官继续发展出新规则的权力,因此不能简单地将《联邦证据规则》视同于其他法典并以此为基础拘泥于其字面意义加以解释;Edward J.Imwinkelried,A Brief Defense of the Supreme Court's Approach to the Interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence,27IND.L.REV.267(1993)恩温科雷德的观点是,最高法院以《联邦证据规则》的文本为基础对其作出解释的方法是正确的,应当为其辩护。[4]Randolph N.Jonakait,The Supreme Court,Plain Meaning,and the Changed Rules of Evidence,68TEX.L.REV.745(1990).Pro-fessor Jonakait has argued that recent Supreme Court decisions have stifled the dynamic quality of evidence law;Thomas M.Mengler,The Theory of Discretion in the Federal Rules of Evidence,74Iowa L.Rev.413(1989);Randolph N.Jonakait,Text,Texts,Or Ad Hoc Determinations:Interpretation Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence,71Ind.L.J.551(1996);Andrew E.Taslitz,Interpretive Method And The Federal Rules Of Evidence:ACall For APolitically Realistic Hermeneutics,32Harv.J.on Legis.329(1995);Paul C.Giannelli,Interpreting The Federal Rules Of Evidence,15Cardozo L.Rev.1999(1994);Edward J.Imwinkelried,Moving Beyond"Top Down"Grand Theories of Statutory Construction:A"Bottom Up"Interpretive Approach to the Federal Rules of Evidence,75Or.L.Rev.389(1996);Eileen A.Scallen,Andrew E.Taslitz,Reading the Federal Rules of Evidence Realistically:A Response to Professor Imwinkelried,75Or.L.Rev.429(1996).[1]“形式的和理性的两方面证据的刻板僵硬经常使得在刑事案件中确定定罪依据变得十分困难。正是由于这个原因而不是其他什么原因,最终导致了广泛地使用刑讯手段获取证据,尤其是证据之王——口供。”见伯尔曼著:《法律与革命》,1993年版,贺卫方、高鸿钧、张志铭、夏勇译,中国大百科全书出版社,第306页。[2]Mirjan Damaska,Of Hearsay and Its Analogues,in76Minn.L.Rev.425-458.[1]等级模式(hierarchical officialdom)的司法官僚体制,是指司法官员往往由等级分明的专业法官组成,上下级之间的关系强调不平等的特征。职业化的官僚以及长时期的任职,均不可避免地导致专业化和程式化,而这些又导致司法官员划定一个他们认为属于他们的领域,并在处于相同情境中的人员内部发展出彼此之间自我认同的身份意识。逐渐地,“内部人”和“外部人”之间的区别变得严格化,从而“外部人”对程序的参与以及对程序决定的制作而言则变得无关紧要。Mirjan Damaska,Faces of Justice and State Authority,Yale University,New Haven and London,1986,pp.18-23.[2]“In addition,in states like New York and several others,the legislature controls the codification and the amendment process.Given the popularity with voters of‘tough on crime’issues,criminal defense lawyers fear the politization of evidence law.They trust judges more than legis-lators.”Faust F.Rossi,The Federal Rules Of Evidence In Retrospect:Observations From The1995Aals Evidence Section:The Federal Rules Of Evidence-Past,Present,And Future:A Twenty-Year Perspective,28Loy.L.A.L.Rev.1271(1995).[1]James Bradley Thayer,A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law,Cite as Evidence,Augustus M.Kelley.Publishers,New York,1969.[2]Note,Improper Evidence In Nonjury Trials:Basis For Reversal79Harv.L.Rev.407(1965),p.407.[3]“Most of those rules-relating to relevance,hearsay,privilege,and so on-were calculated to exclude various kinds of testimony and tangible evidence from a lay jury's consideration during its fact-finding deliberations.The notion underlying many,although not all,of these categorical negative rules was that jurors in a less sophisticated time were ill-equipped accurately to assess the relevance and reliability(the proba-tive worth)of some classes of evidentiary material.Jurors,it was speculated,might assign substantial weight to some forms of evidence without pausing to focus on their questionable trustworthiness and the ready availability of stronger,or at least more thoroughly tested,proofs.Furthermore,it was said,again in an empirical vacuum,that certain types of evidence might confuse jurors or ignite their irrational prejudices.”Waltz,Judicial Discretion in the Admission of Evidence Under the Federal Rules of Evidence,79NW.U.L.REV.1097,1097(1985).[4]威格默认为,证据法的产生最早可以追溯到16世纪;郎本指出,直至18世纪中期,证据法也没有完全发展起来,其成熟大约是19世纪的事情;并指出,威格默也承认有关证据法的历史文献不会早于18世纪,只不过威格默认为那是由于历史文献难以获得的缘故。John H.Langbein,Historical Foundations Of The Law Of Evidence:A View From The Ryder Sources,85Colum.L.Rev.1193(1996),p.1171.[5]Jack B.Weinstein,Margaret A.Berger,Weinstein’s Evidence Manual Student Edition,6th Edition,Matthew Bender&Company,Inc.,2003,at10.04.[1]Dale A.Nance,The Best Evidence Principle,Iowa Law Review,January,1988,p.281.[2]Michael L.Seigel,Rationalizing Hearsay:A Proposal For A Best Evidence Hearsay Rule,72B.U.L.Rev.893(1992)[3]Morgan,The Jury and the Exclusionary Rules of Evidence,4U.CHI.L.REV.247,250-51(1937).[4]John H.Langbein,Historical Foundations Of The Law Of Evidence:A View From The Ryder Sources,85Colum.L.Rev.1193(1996).[5]有学者将这种制度称为“问答式”,而将大陆法系和我国的证人作证方式称为“叙述式”,有一定的道理。参见龙宗智:“论我国刑事审判中的交叉询问制度”,载《中国法学》,2000年第4期,第82页。[1]这里不涉及对以上提到著作的评价问题。从著作水平而言,笔者认为上述著作均体现了较高的立法技术水平,并且提出了比较具有可行性的建议。但是各自从自己的角度出发提出了不同的立法模式,却没有任何一方对自己的模式进行充分的论证,这或许是上述著作面临的最大的问题。[2]刘善春、毕玉谦、郑旭著:《诉讼证据规则研究》,中国法制出版社2000年版,可比较其第341-368页提出的刑事证据规则与第650-666页提出的民事证据规则的规定,无论在体系上还是在内容上均大同小异。[3]Fed.R.Evid.,Article III.[1]这一方向的努力只会把我们带回证据法的萌芽时代:在英国早期的证据法著作中,曾经将证据的充足性作为论述的对象。例如,在吉尔伯特的《论证据》(该书大约写作于1726年,作者逝世后于1754年出版)中,主要论述的就是三个问题:一是以“最佳证据规则”为核心的文书证据规则,二是以因利害关系而被取消作证资格为核心的证人资格规则,第三就是根据实体法标准决断的证据的充分性问题。参见:John H.Langbein,Historical Foundations Of The LawOf Evidence:AViewFrom The Ryder Sources,85Colum.L.Rev.1193(1996),p.1176.[1][法]勒内.达维:《英国法与法国法:一种实质性比较》,潘华仿、高鸿钧、贺卫方译,清华大学出版社2002年版。[2][德]马克斯.韦伯,《经济与社会(下)》,林荣远译,商务印书馆2004年版。[3]林端:《韦伯论中国传统法律——韦伯比较社会学的批判》,三民书局2003年版。[4]黄金荣:“法的形式理性论——以法之确定性问题为中心”,载《比较法研究》2000年第3期。[5][德]马克斯.韦伯:《论经济与社会中的法律》,张乃根译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。[6]易延友:“证据学是一门法学吗”,载《政法论坛》2004年第3期。[7]易延友:《陪审团审判与对抗式诉讼》,三民书局2004年版。[8]刘善春、毕玉谦、郑旭:《诉讼证据规则研究》,中国法制出版社2000年版。[9]陈光中主编:《中华人民共和国刑事证据法专家拟制稿(条文、释义与论证)》,中国法制出版社2004年版。[10]江伟主编:《中国证据法草案(建议稿)及立法理由书》,中国人民大学出版社2004年版。[11][德]罗森贝克:《证明责任论——以德国民法典和民事诉讼法典为基础撰写(第4版)》,庄敬华译,中国法制出版社2002年版。[12][德]霍尔斯特.海因里希.雅科布斯:《十九世纪德国民法科学与立法》,王娜译,法律出版社2003年版。