贿赂犯罪言词证据的证明力判定标准与采信程序  

Judicial Proof Standard and Examination Process on Witness Testimony in Bribery Crime Cases

作　　者：刘磊[1,2] Liu Lei

机构地区：[1] 苏州大学王健法学院 [2]江苏省靖江市人民检察院

出　　处：《苏州大学学报（法学版）》2016年第4期112-120,共9页Journal of Soochow University：Law Edition

基　　金：江苏省教育厅基金资助项目“量刑对定罪的反作用力研究”(项目编号:2015SJB32)的阶段性研究成果

摘　　要：贿赂犯罪案件中,被告人的辩解未必导致合理的怀疑。法院应当视被告人举证责任的履行程度而定,根据证据法上经验规则审查来判断辩解的可信度。定罪须排除合理怀疑是指案件总体结论上的唯一性,而并非要求所有的犯罪构成要素均达到准确无疑问。如果赋予犯罪嫌疑人沉默权,将提升贿赂犯罪嫌疑人供述的证明力,更有利于法院综合判断言词证据的证明力。沉默权制度与犯罪率、追诉率、定罪率无必然因果关系,沉默权是讯问法治化的标志之一,制定刚性规则来为侦查机关划定合法与违法讯问的界限,更有利于侦查程序的法治化转型。在贿赂犯罪等特定案件的审理程序中,设置英美式的陪审团制不仅可以减缓公诉机关、法院的司法证明风险,也促使贿赂犯罪被告人慎重权衡是否认罪认罚从宽。Defendants＇ alibi will not necessarily lead to reasonable doubt in court of bribery cases. In trial proceedings, Judge or Jury should firstly examine prudently whether defendants have fulfilled burden of proof and then review the reliability of the alibi by rule of judicial notice. ＂Beyond reasonable Doubt＂ doesn＇t mean that all the crime elements must be proofed to absolutely right but to the proof standard of only conclusion. If bribery suspects are guaranteed the right of silence, more and more confessions＇ reliability will be promoted thereafter, which also guarantee court review confessions correctly. There is no absolute relation between the right of silence and crime rate, prosecuting rate or conviction rate. As a symbol of rule of law, the right of defendant＇ keeping silence when facing investigators may lead some positive influence on reforming of crime investigation if only the court can make some bright line for police. In some special criminal procedure such as bribery, Jury trial system may not only low the risk of prosecuting department or court but also make the accused defendants prudently consider to plead guilty or confessions as soon as he could.

关 键 词：排除合理怀疑 言词证据 自由心证 沉默权 陪审团 

分 类 号：D915[政治法律—诉讼法学]