美国联邦证据法视域下对质权与传闻规则的互动研究——以联邦最高法院Bullcoming v.New Mexico案为例  

Interaction between the Right of Confrontation and Hearsay Rule in Terms of Federal Law of Evidence——A Study Based on the Bullcoming v. New Mexico Case in the United States Supreme Court

作　　者：许乐[1] 冯卫国[1] 

机构地区：[1]西北政法大学刑事法律科学研究中心,陕西西安710122

出　　处：《陕西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2014年第1期170-176,共7页Journal of Shaanxi Normal University(Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition)

基　　金：陕西省社会科学基金项目(10M005)

摘　　要：联邦最高法院对于Bullcoming v.New Mexico案的裁决理由及其相关论证,反映出联邦最高法院目前在"证言性陈述"的认定方式及适用范围上的最新立场。即庭外陈述者向政府官员所做的"证言性陈述",属于"证言性传闻证据",应当受到对质权的约束,而不受传闻规则例外的规制;庭外陈述者向非政府官员所做的"证言性陈述",则属于"非证言性传闻证据",只受到传闻规则例外的约束,而不受对质权的规制。但是联邦最高法院目前对于对质权与传闻规则例外的两者适用范围存在着重大分歧,充分体现了联邦最高法院在此问题上的价值权衡倾向。The reasons of judgment and relevant demonstrations the United States Supreme Court offered to the the Bullcoming v. New Mexico Case showed the current latest position of the Supreme Court to the affirmation means and domain of application of ＂testimony statements＂. Specifically, the ＂testimony statements＂ made by the out-court narrator to the governmental official belong to ＂testimony hearsay evidence＂ and should be bound by the right of confrontation but not by the regulation of hearsay exception while the ＂testimony statements＂ made by the out-court narrator to the non-governmental official belong to ＂non-testimony hearsay evidence＂ and should be bound by the regulation of hearsay exception but not by the right of confrontation. However, the Supreme Court differs se- riously in the domain of application of the right of confrontation and regulation of hearsay exception, which evidently shows its tendency of value balance on the issue.

关 键 词：美国史 美国联邦证据法 对质权 传闻规则 明显可信性 证言性陈述 价值权衡 

分 类 号：K712[历史地理—历史学] D916[历史地理—世界史]