美国证据排除规则的转向——以“哈德逊诉密西根州”案为视角  

On the Changes of American Exclusionary Rule: From the Perspective of Cases before and after Hudson v. Michigan

作　　者：王景龙[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学 [2]西安财经学院

出　　处：《比较法研究》2015年第1期156-170,共15页Journal of Comparative Law

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究一般项目"基层检察机关实施刑事诉讼法状况实证研究"(西部和边疆地区项目;项目批准号09XJA820012);西安财经学院2012年科研基金项目"契约文明下的协商型司法"(项目批准号12XCK08)的资助;2015年陕西省教育厅人文社科项目"刑事证据补救规则研究"的成果

摘　　要：美国联邦最高法院对待排除规则的态度在2006年的"哈德逊诉密西根州"案中发生了根本性改变,作出了"排除规则一直是我们最后的手段,而不是首选"的著名论断,声称其他救济措施可以完全替代排除规则,强烈暗示排除规则已经过时了、没有存在的必要了。随后的赫瑞恩案、戴维斯案及金案等重要判例延续了这一立场,纷纷实质性地限制了排除规则的适用,直接导致了排除规则的转向。为摆脱警察滥权的困扰,初步建立证据排除规则的中国对待非法证据的态度也发生了转向。转变的方向与美国相反,但殊途同归。The U.S. Supreme Court＇ s attitude to exclusionary rule has undergone a fundamental change after the case of Hudson v. Michigan in 2006, and in the majority＇ s opinion, the Court rendered its famous remarks ＂ （ the rule） has always been our last resort, not our first impulse. ＂ It asserted that other alternative remedies can completely substitute the rule, which suggests strongly that the exclusionary rule is obsolete, useless. The subsequent leading cases, such as Herring v. United States （2009）, Kentucky v. King （2011） and Davis v. United States （2011）, etc, continued the trend, which have substantially limited the scope of the exclusionary rule, and led to its radical changes of these kinds, finally. China, always troubled by the police＇ s torture and other abuses, began to establish exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. To get out of the trouble, China＇ s attitude to exclusionary rule has changed. The direction of changes is different from U. S. , but the destination is the same.

关 键 词：威慑违法理论 成本分析方法 证据的补救 

分 类 号：D971.2[政治法律—法学] DD915