律师辩护权的弃权与失权
郑旭; 1:中国政法大学 摘要(Abstract)：

我国刑事诉讼法中没有关于律师辩护权弃权与失权的规定,但相关司法解释规定了某些情况下律师辩护权不得放弃,某些情况下会丧失律师辩护权。律师辩护权在法庭上可以自愿地且明知后果地放弃;对被追诉人频繁更换律师、辱骂殴打律师等拖延诉讼的行为,应当予以继续实施此类行为可能会导致被认为默示弃权的警告,如果被追诉人继续实施,则认为其放弃了律师辩护权。同时,对被追诉人的极端行为,应当由法院作为妨害诉讼的行为予以处罚。

关键词(KeyWords)： 律师帮助权;;律师辩护权;;弃权;;默示放弃;;失权

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 中国政法大学青年教师学术创新团队(研究方向“刑事辩护制度研究”)阶段性研究成果

作者(Author): 郑旭;

Email:


参考文献(References)： [1]《最高人民法院关于执行〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉若干问题的解释》第165条第3款。[2]根据2012年修改的《刑事诉讼法》,没有委托辩护人,应当通知法律援助机构指派律师为其提供辩护或者代理的有四种情形:第一,盲、聋、哑人或者是尚未完全丧失辨认或者控制自己行为能力的精神病人(第34条第2款);第二,可能被判处无期徒刑、死刑(第34条第3款);第三,未成年(第267条);第四,强制医疗案件中的被申请人或者被告人(第286条第2款)。[1]Faretta v.California,422U.S.806(1975).[2]Faretta v.California,422U.S.806(1975),at807.[3]Faretta v.California,422U.S.806(1975),at835.[4]Sarah Gerwig Moore,Gideon's vuvuzela:Reconciling the Sixth Amendment's Promises with the Doctrines of Forfeiture and Implicit Waiver of Counsel,81Miss.L.J.439,at447.[5]Faretta v.California,422U.S.806(1975),at806.[6]Michael J.Kelly,Making Faretta v.California Work Properly:Observations and Proposals for the Administration of Waiver of Counsel In-quiries,20ST.JOHN'S J.LEGAL COMMENT.245(2005),at262.[7]21A AM.JUR.2D Criminal Law§1160(2011).[8]Faretta v.California,422U.S.806(1975).[9]Faretta v.California,422U.S.806(1975),at835(quoting Adams v.United States ex rel.McCann,317U.S.269,279(1942).Grace Chung&Alan Sege,Comment,Trial Criminal Procedure Project,81Geo.L.J.1267,1276(1983)United States v.Berkowitz,927F.2d1376,at1383.Wayne R.Lafave&Jerold H.Israel,Criminal Procedure s11.1,(2d ed.1992),at554.[1]Stephen A.Gerst,Forfeiture of the Right to Counsel:A Doctrine Unhinged from the Constitution58Clev.St.L.Rev.97,at112.[2]同上注。[3]Faretta v.California,422U.S.806(1975),at835.[4]United States v.Goldberg,67F.3d1092(3d Cir.1995),at1100.[5]Suzanne Diaz,Case Note,State v.Hampton:Addressing Forfeiture of the Right to Counsel by Egregious Conduct,47Ariz.L.Rev.837(2005),at839(citing United States v.Goldberg,67F.3d1092,1100(3d Cir.1995).[6]Suzanne Diaz,Case Note,State v.Hampton:Addressing Forfeiture of the Right to Counsel by Egregious Conduct,47Ariz.L.Rev.837(2005),at839(citing Hampton,92P.3d at874)..[7]Jennifer Elizabeth Parker,Casebrief,Constitutional Law United States v.Goldberg:The Third Circuit's Nontraditional Approach to Waiver of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel,41Vill.L.Rev.1173(1996),at1209n.189(citing Goldberg,67F.3d at11001101).[8]Jennifer Elizabeth Parker,Casebrief,Constitutional Law United States v.Goldberg:The Third Circuit's Nontraditional Approach to Waiver of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel,41Vill.L.Rev.1173(1996),at1204(citing Goldberg,67F.3d at1100).[9]Gilchrist v.O'Keefe,260F.3d87(2d Cir.2001),at94.Goldberg,67F.3d1092(3d Cir.1995)at110001(citing Illinois v.Allen,397U.S.337,343(1970).United States v.Goldberg,67F.3d1092(3d Cir.1995).United States v.McLeod,53F.3d322(11th Cir.1995).Stephen A.Gerst,Forfeiture of the Right to Counsel:A Doctrine Unhinged from the Constitution58Clev.St.L.Rev.97,at107.[1]United States v.McLeod,53F.3d322(11th Cir.1995),at325.[2]United States v.McLeod,53F.3d322(11th Cir.1995),at325(quoting United States v.Fowler,605F.2d181,183(5th Cir.1979).[3]Illinois v.Allen,397U.S.337,343(1970);Fowler,605F.2d at183.[4]United States v.McLeod,53F.3d322(11th Cir.1995),at326.[5]Jennifer Elizabeth Parker,Casebrief,Constitutional Law United States v.Goldberg:The Third Circuit's Nontraditional Approach to Waiver of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel,41Vill.L.Rev.1173(1996),at1197.[6]United States v.McLeod,53F.3d322(11th Cir.1995),at326.[7]United States v.Goldberg,67F.3d1092,(3d Cir.1995),at1102.[8]United States v.Jennings,855F.Supp.1427,1445(M.D.Pa.1994),aff'd,61F.3d897(3d Cir.1995).[9]United States v.Jennings,855F.Supp.1427(M.D.Pa.1994),at1432,1445.United States v.Jennings,855F.Supp.1427(M.D.Pa.1994),at1433.United States v.Jennings,855F.Supp.1427(M.D.Pa.1994),at1444.United States v.Jennings,855F.Supp.1427(M.D.Pa.1994),at1444;联邦第三巡回区上诉法院维持了该院的裁定,United States v.Jennings,61F.3d897(3d Cir.1995).United States v.Leggett,162F.3d237(3d Cir.1998),at240.United States v.Leggett,162F.3d237(3d Cir.1998),at250(quoting United States v.Goldberg,67F.3d1092,1102(3d Cir.1995).[1]United States v.Leggett,162F.3d237(3d Cir.1998),at251n.14.[2]Gilchrist v.O'Keefe,260F.3d89(2d Cir.2001),at90,91n.1.[3]Gilchrist v.O'Keefe,260F.3d89(2d Cir.2001),at8090.[4]Gilchrist v.O'Keefe,260F.3d89(2d Cir.2001),at100.[5]Gilchrist v.O'Keefe,260F.3d89(2d Cir.2001),at99.[6]Gilchrist v.O'Keefe,260F.3d89(2d Cir.2001),at89.[7]Gilchrist v.O'Keefe,260F.3d89(2d Cir.2001),at100.[8]United States v.Thomas,357F.3d357(3d Cir.2004),at363.[9]United States v.Thomas,357F.3d357,(3d Cir.2004),at359361.United States v.Thomas,357F.3d357,(3d Cir.2004),at361,363.由于地区法院对被告人进行过警告,即继续拒绝合作将会导致丧失律师帮助权,而被告人继续实施不当行为,因此地区法院裁定被告人既是默示放弃,又是失权。United States v.Thomas,357F.3d357(3d Cir.2004),at363.Sarah Gerwig Moore,Gideon's vuvuzela:Reconciling the Sixth Amendment's Promises with the Doctrines of Forfeiture and Implicit Waiver of Counsel,81Miss.L.J.439,at455.State v.Carruthers,35S.W.3d516,549(Tenn.2000),cert.denied,533U.S.953(2001).State v.Carruthers,35S.W.3d516(Tenn.2000),at550(quoting State v.Cummings,546N.W.2d406,419(Wis.1996).[1]State v.Jones,772N.W.2d496(Minn.2009),cert.denied,130S.Ct.3275(2010).[2]State v.Jones,772N.W.2d496(Minn.2009),at502.[3]State v.Jones,772N.W.2d496(Minn.2009),at506.[4]Fed.R.Crim.P.43(c);Laurel M.Cohn,Annotation,Sufficiency of Showing Defendant's“Voluntary Absence”From Trial for Purposes of Criminal Procedure Rule43,Authorizing Continuances of Trial Notwithstanding Such Absence,141A.L.R.FED569(1997).[5]例如,United States v.Muzevsky,760F.2d83(4th Cir.1985)(被告人逃跑并且七个月都没有抓到,被认为放弃了出席法庭审理的权利);United States v.Powell,611F.2d41(4th Cir.1979)(被告人被批准离开所在地区去收集证据,但是一去不返,直到两年之后才被抓住,被认为自愿放弃了出席法庭审理的权利);Perez Goitia v.United States,409F.2d524(1st Cir.1969)(被告人脱保逃跑以后,被认为自愿放弃了出席法庭审理的权利).[6]Barker v.Wingo,407U.S.514(1972).[7]Illinois v.Allen,397U.S.337(1970).[8]Raffel v.United States,271U.S.494(1926).[9]Adams v.United States ex rel.McCann,317U.S.269(1942).Stephen A.Gerst,Forfeiture of the Right to Counsel:A Doctrine Unhinged from the Constitution58Clev.St.L.Rev.97,at114.Illinois v.Allen,397U.S.337(1970).Illinois v.Allen,397U.S.337(1970),at343.United States v.White,529F.2d1390,1393(8th Cir.1976).[1]Stephen A.Gerst,Forfeiture of the Right to Counsel:A Doctrine Unhinged from the Constitution58Clev.St.L.Rev.97,at112.[2]Johnson v.Zerbst,304U.S.458(1938),at464.[3]Stephen A.Gerst,Forfeiture of the Right to Counsel:A Doctrine Unhinged from the Constitution58Clev.St.L.Rev.97,at110111.[4]United States v.Goldberg,67F.3d1092,(3d Cir.1995),at1102.[5]Stephen A.Gerst,Forfeiture of the Right to Counsel:A Doctrine Unhinged from the Constitution58Clev.St.L.Rev.97,at111.[6]Sarah Gerwig Moore,Gideon's vuvuzela:Reconciling the Sixth Amendment's Promises with the Doctrines of Forfeiture and Implicit Waiver of Counsel,81Miss.L.J.439,at479.[7]Authority of the Trial Judge,39Geo.L.J.Ann.Rev.Crim.Proc.597(2010),at606.[8]Louis S.Raveson,Advocacy and Contempt:Constitutional Limitations on the Judicial Contempt Power Part One:The Conflict Between Ad-vocacy and Contempt,65Wash.L.Rev.477(1990),at48081.[9]Eric Fleisig Greene,Why Contempt is Different:Agency Costs and“Petty Crime”in Summary Contempt Proceedings,112Yale L.J.1223(2003),at1246.People v.Clancy,239Ill.App.369(Ill.App.Ct.1926).Assault on Attorney as Contempt,61A.L.R.3d500(1975);