证据科学
證據科學
증거과학
EVIDENCE SEIENCE
2014年
5期
517-543
,共27页
不在犯罪现场%证据开示%追求真相%举证责任%自证其罪
不在犯罪現場%證據開示%追求真相%舉證責任%自證其罪
불재범죄현장%증거개시%추구진상%거증책임%자증기죄
Alibi%Disclosure of evidence%Truth-seeking%Burden of proof%Self-incrimination
我国2012年《刑事诉讼法》所确立的不在犯罪现场的辩方开示义务如“邯郸学步”，这是把一种可能无需法律规制的常识判断转化为一种程序规则“。不在犯罪现场的证据”具有无罪的指向性、整体的意见性以及形态的中介性，这一概念发展了证据形式和证据种类的理论。然而这个规则既无根基也无后果，一方面，在我国官方垄断取证的背景之下“，不在犯罪现场”的辩护不可能对控方造成突然袭击，还可能被认为是狡辩而不受待见，而辩护方的所有取证活动必须汇集到控方的单向证明活动之中才被看做是证据；另一方面，倘若被告人并未履行“不在犯罪现场”的证据开示义务，尽管出于辩护本能，根本没有这种可能，对被告人而言，也没有相应的惩罚后果。须知在英美法系国家为寻找真相而要求庭前开示不在犯罪现场的证据也可能事与愿违。因此，在我国“不在犯罪现场”的证明只关注了为了削弱程序抗辩的证据交换问题，而未考虑辩护方的证据收集能力的前提问题以及控诉方怠于为反对抗辩而积极取证的责任问题。在此背景下，基于无罪推定原则，不在犯罪现场的抗辩是辩护方证否的权利，及早提出可以防止追诉机关的错误积重难返；又基于举证责任分配原则，不在犯罪现场的证明反而是控诉方要承担的一个证实的义务，要求其积极核实和审查。
我國2012年《刑事訴訟法》所確立的不在犯罪現場的辯方開示義務如“邯鄲學步”，這是把一種可能無需法律規製的常識判斷轉化為一種程序規則“。不在犯罪現場的證據”具有無罪的指嚮性、整體的意見性以及形態的中介性，這一概唸髮展瞭證據形式和證據種類的理論。然而這箇規則既無根基也無後果，一方麵，在我國官方壟斷取證的揹景之下“，不在犯罪現場”的辯護不可能對控方造成突然襲擊，還可能被認為是狡辯而不受待見，而辯護方的所有取證活動必鬚彙集到控方的單嚮證明活動之中纔被看做是證據；另一方麵，倘若被告人併未履行“不在犯罪現場”的證據開示義務，儘管齣于辯護本能，根本沒有這種可能，對被告人而言，也沒有相應的懲罰後果。鬚知在英美法繫國傢為尋找真相而要求庭前開示不在犯罪現場的證據也可能事與願違。因此，在我國“不在犯罪現場”的證明隻關註瞭為瞭削弱程序抗辯的證據交換問題，而未攷慮辯護方的證據收集能力的前提問題以及控訴方怠于為反對抗辯而積極取證的責任問題。在此揹景下，基于無罪推定原則，不在犯罪現場的抗辯是辯護方證否的權利，及早提齣可以防止追訴機關的錯誤積重難返；又基于舉證責任分配原則，不在犯罪現場的證明反而是控訴方要承擔的一箇證實的義務，要求其積極覈實和審查。
아국2012년《형사소송법》소학립적불재범죄현장적변방개시의무여“함단학보”，저시파일충가능무수법률규제적상식판단전화위일충정서규칙“。불재범죄현장적증거”구유무죄적지향성、정체적의견성이급형태적중개성，저일개념발전료증거형식화증거충류적이론。연이저개규칙기무근기야무후과，일방면，재아국관방롱단취증적배경지하“，불재범죄현장”적변호불가능대공방조성돌연습격，환가능피인위시교변이불수대견，이변호방적소유취증활동필수회집도공방적단향증명활동지중재피간주시증거；령일방면，당약피고인병미리행“불재범죄현장”적증거개시의무，진관출우변호본능，근본몰유저충가능，대피고인이언，야몰유상응적징벌후과。수지재영미법계국가위심조진상이요구정전개시불재범죄현장적증거야가능사여원위。인차，재아국“불재범죄현장”적증명지관주료위료삭약정서항변적증거교환문제，이미고필변호방적증거수집능력적전제문제이급공소방태우위반대항변이적겁취증적책임문제。재차배경하，기우무죄추정원칙，불재범죄현장적항변시변호방증부적권리，급조제출가이방지추소궤관적착오적중난반；우기우거증책임분배원칙，불재범죄현장적증명반이시공소방요승담적일개증실적의무，요구기적겁핵실화심사。
It was just like a swan-imitating crow that set a defense obligation to the disclosure of alibi evidence established in the criminal procedure law in China in 2012. This renders a judgment possibly without legal regulation of common sense into a kind of procedural rules. "Alibi evidence" is directed to innocent, a kind of opinions as the whole, as well as the intermediary in the form. The concept develops the variety of forms and generic of evidence in theory. The rules have neither roots nor consequences. However, on one hand, under the background of official monopoly to evidence-collection in China, "alibi" defenses may not cause an ambush attack to the prosecution, also may be considered to be chicanery and unbelievable, and all forensic defense activities could be named as evidence when they were in conlfux into a one-way proving activities by the prosecution; on the other hand, if the defendant did not fulifll his or her obligation to discovery of alibi evidence, although that cannot happen by defense instinct, there is no corresponding procedural punishment for the defendant. It is knowable that disclosure of the alibi evidence before the court in common law countries to seek the truth also could cause backifre. Therefore, proof of alibi in China only focused on the issue of evidence exchange to weaken the contest, and did not consider the premise of the defense ability of evidence collection and the responsibility of the prosecution idle at collecting evidence for objection to alibi. In this context, based on the principle of presumption of innocence, alibi defense is the right of the defendants and its early raising-up can prevent the endless errors made by the prosecution, and based on the principle of distribution of evidential burden, prosecutor bears an obligation to conifrm alibi proof, with a requirement of positive veriifcation and review.
