“核实同案犯供述”的正当性证成与制度完善路径--基于对《刑事诉讼法》第37条第4款的规范展开  

Justifications and the Improvement Path of “Verifying Accomplices Confession”: Based on Norms of the Fourth Paragraph of Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Law

作　　者：孟婕[1] Meng Jie

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院,北京100872

出　　处：《法学杂志》2018年第10期116-123,共8页Law Science Magazine

摘　　要：《刑事诉讼法》第37条规定辩护律师自案件移送审查起诉之日起,可以向犯罪嫌疑人、被告人核实有关证据。但该规范对于"核实证据"的具体范围和方式却语焉不详,这种规范上的不周延导致了现实中律师核实证据的方式迥异、法院对所核实证据的认定困难等一系列实务问题,也引发了学界关于辩护人权利行使空间以及被追诉人权利应然范围的更深度探讨。细查我国辩护律师核实证据的实践经验,其中最具争议的问题莫过于律师能否向犯罪嫌疑人、被告人披露同案犯口供。未来我国既应立足于在制度层面上充分保障辩护律师向委托被告人告知同案犯供述的权利,也应正确认识相应规范适用的合理边界。Article 37 of Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012 stipulates that ＂defense counsel can verify the evidence with the suspect or defendant as soon as the case is transferred for review and prosecution. ＂But the norms for the ＂verification of evidence＂of the specific scope and manner is not yet clear. This non-normative norms lead to a series of substantive issues. It also brings discussion on the right of defenders and the scope of the right of the accused. However,one of the most controversial issues is whether lawyers have right to disclose other accomplices’ confession to the suspects,defendants. In the future,our country should not only be based on adequately safeguarding the rights of defense counsel,but also should understand the reasonable boundaries of the norms apply.

关 键 词：核实证据 同案犯供述 律师辩护权 侦查效果 司法公正 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]