证据科学
證據科學
증거과학
EVIDENCE SEIENCE
2015年
3期
296-308
,共13页
质证%质证要素%民事庭审质证%民事诉讼%民事诉讼法
質證%質證要素%民事庭審質證%民事訴訟%民事訴訟法
질증%질증요소%민사정심질증%민사소송%민사소송법
Evidence examination%Elements of evidence examination%Evidence examination in civil cases%Civil action%Civil procedure law
民事庭审质证是质证双方在法庭主持下就证据的证明力和可采性进行相互辩驳的诉讼行为,其基本要素包括质证主体、质证客体、质证内容和质证方式四个方面。质证主体应是证据或其形成过程的认识者、质证意思的独立表示者、质证程序的参与者、质证行为的实施者、与质证相关的程序性权利的享有者或程序性义务的承担者,其不但包括当事人,而且包括广义上的证人。质证客体的范围应限于“当事人提出质疑的证据”,过宽或过窄均不利于兼顾司法公正的实现和诉讼效率的提升。质证内容应限于证据的真实性、关联性和合法性三个方面,证据的客观性缺乏质证意义,充分性只有在证据链中才有质证意义。质证方式亦即质证的行为方式,其有别于质证的基础性工作,是质证双方针对证据的证明力及其可采性展开的法庭论辩。
民事庭審質證是質證雙方在法庭主持下就證據的證明力和可採性進行相互辯駁的訴訟行為,其基本要素包括質證主體、質證客體、質證內容和質證方式四箇方麵。質證主體應是證據或其形成過程的認識者、質證意思的獨立錶示者、質證程序的參與者、質證行為的實施者、與質證相關的程序性權利的享有者或程序性義務的承擔者,其不但包括噹事人,而且包括廣義上的證人。質證客體的範圍應限于“噹事人提齣質疑的證據”,過寬或過窄均不利于兼顧司法公正的實現和訴訟效率的提升。質證內容應限于證據的真實性、關聯性和閤法性三箇方麵,證據的客觀性缺乏質證意義,充分性隻有在證據鏈中纔有質證意義。質證方式亦即質證的行為方式,其有彆于質證的基礎性工作,是質證雙方針對證據的證明力及其可採性展開的法庭論辯。
민사정심질증시질증쌍방재법정주지하취증거적증명력화가채성진행상호변박적소송행위,기기본요소포괄질증주체、질증객체、질증내용화질증방식사개방면。질증주체응시증거혹기형성과정적인식자、질증의사적독립표시자、질증정서적삼여자、질증행위적실시자、여질증상관적정서성권리적향유자혹정서성의무적승담자,기불단포괄당사인,이차포괄엄의상적증인。질증객체적범위응한우“당사인제출질의적증거”,과관혹과착균불리우겸고사법공정적실현화소송효솔적제승。질증내용응한우증거적진실성、관련성화합법성삼개방면,증거적객관성결핍질증의의,충분성지유재증거련중재유질증의의。질증방식역즉질증적행위방식,기유별우질증적기출성공작,시질증쌍방침대증거적증명력급기가채성전개적법정론변。
The evidence examination in civil trials is a trial process presided by the judge, during which both parties could present and rebut evidence in regard to the probative value or the admissibility of evidence. The evidential examination consists of four elements, including the subject, the object, the content and the method. The subject of evidence examination in civil trials includes not only both parties, but also the witness in broad sense. The object refers to the evidence challenged by either party. Widening or narrowing too much the scope of the object can damage either the value of justice or efifciency. The content of evidence examination in civil trials should be limited to examining authenticity, relevancy and legality of evidence. The objectivity of the evidence lacks practicability in evidence examination. Examining the sufifciency of the evidence is meaningless unless it is used to test the chain of custody. The method means how to examine the evidence. It differs from the fundamental work prepared for evidence examination. It should be deifned as trial advocacy on the probative value or admissibility of the evidence.