从陪审团审判到公正审判——关于传闻证据规则的历史沿革和理论嬗变
朱立恒; 1:湖南师范大学法学院 摘要(Abstract)：

在英国实行知情陪审团时期,传闻证据规则并没有存在的必要性。随着大陪审团与小陪审团之间的分离,传闻证据规则逐渐得以确立。早期传闻证据规则主要是为了防止传闻证据对陪审团的误导。随着传闻证据可靠性的增强,传闻证据规则的适用越来越宽松。鉴于我国刑事诉讼缺失传闻证据规则所造成的诸多弊端,我国很有必要构建传闻证据规则。但值得注意的是,我国构建传闻证据规则的着眼点并不在于传闻证据本身是否真实、可靠,而是基于程序正义价值的考虑。

关键词(KeyWords)： 传闻证据规则;;陪审团审判;;公正审判

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 朱立恒;

Email:


参考文献(References)： [1][美]约翰.W.斯特龙主编:《麦考密克论证据》,汤维建等译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第480页;Rupert Cross,Cross on Evidence,Sixth edition,London Butterworths,1985,p.455;Edmund M.Morgan,Hearsay Dangers andthe Application of the Hearsay Concept,Hearsay Law Review,Vol.62,No.2(December,1948),p.178-219。[2]See John H.Wigmore,the History of the Hearsay Rule,Harvard Law Review,Vol.17,No.7(May,1904),p.437-458;Andrew L.-T.Choo,Hearsay and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.3.[1]See Andrew L.-T.Choo,Hearsay and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.3.[2][美]约翰.W.斯特龙主编:《麦考密克论证据》,汤维建等译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第480页;See Andrew L.-T.Choo,Hearsay and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.3.[3]See Andrew L.-T.Choo,Hearsay and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.4;John H.Wig-more,the History of the Hearsay Rule,Harvard Law Review,Vol.17,No.7(May,1904),p.437-458.[4]正如美国证据法学家华尔兹认为,正是“出于对沃尔特.雷利夫案件结果的借鉴,在17世纪下半叶,形成了排除传闻的规则”。参见[美]乔恩.R.华尔兹:《刑事证据大全》,何家弘等译,中国人民公安大学出版社1993年版,第85页。[5]See John H.Wigmore,the History of the Hearsay Rule,Harvard Law Review,Vol.17,No.7(May,1904),p.437-458;An-drew L.-T.Choo,Hearsay and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.4.[6]See John H.Wigmore,the History of the Hearsay Rule,Harvard Law Review,Vol.17,No.7(May,1904),p.437-458.[7]See Andrew L.-T.Choo,Hearsay and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.5.[8]See John H.Wigmore,the History of the Hearsay Rule,Harvard Law Review,Vol.17,No.7(May,1904),p.437-458.[9]See Andrew L.-T.Choo,Hearsay and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.5.[1]See John H.Wigmore,the History of the Hearsay Rule,Harvard Law Review,Vol.17,No.7(May,1904),p.437-458;An-drew L.-T.Choo,Hearsay and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.5.[2]See W.R.Cornish,The Jury,p.84.转引自:易延友:《英美证据法的历史与哲学考察》,《中外法学》2004年第3期。[3]See James Donald Moorehead,Compromising the Hearsay Rule:the Fallacy of Res Gestae Reliablity,29Loy.A.L.Rev.203(November,1995);Eleanor Swift,Abolish the Hearsay Rule,75CALIF.L.REV.495(1987).[1]例如,美国证据法学权威学者威格摩尔指出:“毫无疑问,交叉询问是人类发明的发现案件事实真相的最伟大的法律工具。”See J.H.Wigmore(rev.J.H.Chadbourn),Evidence in Trial at Common Law(Vol.5)(1974),32.转引自Andrew L.-T.Choo,Hear-say and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.32.边沁也曾经指出,交叉询问是英美审判制度的一个独特的特征,它对陪审团审判具有重大意义,它是对证词准确完美的保障措施。参见[美]约翰.W.斯特龙主编:《麦考密克论证据》,汤维建等译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第482页。[1]See Andrew L.-T.Choo,Hearsay and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.7.[2]See Note,The Theoretical Foundation of the Hearsay Rules,93HARV.L.REV.1786,1815(1980);Thomas A.Mauet and Warren D.Wolfson,Trial Evidence,CITIC PUBLISHI NG HOUSE,2003,p170;Bruce P.Archibald,The Canadian Hearsay Revolu-tion:Is Half a Loaf Better Than No Loaf at All-25Queen's LawJournal1,Fall,1999.[3]See Andrew L.-T.Choo,Hearsay and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.166.[4]See Christopher B.Mueller,Post-Modern Hearsay Reform:The Importance of Complexity,76Minnesota Law Review367,February,1992;Eleanor Swift,Abolish the Hearsay Rule,75CALIF.L.REV.495(1987).[5]See Edmund M.Morgan,Hearsay Dangers and the Application of the Hearsay Concept,Hearsay Law Review,Vol.62,No.2(December,1948),p.178-219.[6]See J.Allen,The Working and Rationale of the Hearsay Rule andthe Implication of Modern Psychological Knowledge[1991]C.L.P.217,at230.转引自齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第462页。[1]See James Donald Moorehead,Compromising the Hearsay Rule:the Fallacy of Res Gestae Reliablity,29Loy.A.L.Rev.203(November,1995).[2]See Margaret Bull Kovera,Jurors'Perceptions of Eyewitness and Hearsay Evidence,76Minn.L.Rev.703(1992)[3]See Christopher B.Mueller,Post-Modern Hearsay Reform:The Importance of Complexity,76Minnesota Law Review367,February,1992.[1]See J.R.Spencer and R.Flin,The Evidence of Children,Sweet&Maxwell,1998,p.280.转引自齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第463页。[2]如美国证据法学权威威格摩尔指出:“毫无疑问,交叉询问是人类发明的发现案件事实真相的最伟大的法律工具。”See J.H.Wigmore(rev.J.H.Chadbourn),Evidencein Trial at Common Law(Vol.5)(1974),32.转引自Andrew L.-T.Choo,Hearsay and Confrontationin Criminal Trials,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1996,p.32.[1]田心则:“论传闻证据规则运作的程序背景”,载《中国人民公安大学学报》2005年第4期。[2][美]约翰.W.斯特龙主编:《麦考密克论证据》,汤维建等译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。[3]郭志媛:《刑事证据可采性研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2004年版。[4][英]J.W.塞西尔.特纳:《肯尼刑法原理》,王国庆、李启家等译,华夏出版社1989年版。[5]龙宗智:《刑事庭审制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版。[6][美]乔恩.R.华尔兹:《刑事证据大全》,何家弘等译,中国人民公安大学出版社1993年版。[7]沈达明编著:《英美证据法》,中信出版社1996年版。[8][日]平野龙一:“传闻证据法则的发展趋势”,莫丹谊编译,载《外国法学研究》1996年第3期。[9]何家弘主编:《外国证据法》,法律出版社2003年版。[10]齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版。[11]汪容:“传闻证据规则若干基本问题研究”,载《中国刑事法杂志》2005年第2期。[12]刘国清、刘晶:《刑事证据规则实务》,上海社会科学院出版社2001年版。