辩护律师退庭的三种形态及规制  

On Defense Lawyer’s Withdrawal from Court:Three Models and Regulations

作　　者：杨勇 YANG Yong(School of Law,University of International Business and Economics,Beijing 100029,China;School of Humanities and Law,Guizhou University of Finance and Economics,Guiyang 550025,China)

机构地区：[1]对外经济贸易大学法学院,北京100029 [2]贵州财经大学文法学院,贵州贵阳550025

出　　处：《湖南科技大学学报（社会科学版）》2020年第6期121-128,共8页Journal of Hunan University of Science and Technology(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：中国法学会部级课题 (CLS<2018>C46)。

摘　　要：在司法实践中,辩护律师退庭存在以拒绝辩护之名的许可退庭、以维护法庭秩序之名的责令退庭、以抗议法庭不公之名的擅自退庭等三种形态。对于许可退庭,应当在尊重被告人意志的前提下,从严审查辩护律师拒绝辩护;对于责令退庭,关键应厘清责令退庭的依据并遵循诉讼指挥权的行使原理,同时赋予律师异议权;对于擅自退庭,应当区分擅自退庭与拒绝辩护的关系,不得因擅自退庭而随意剥夺律师的辩护人资格。不同的退庭形态反映出不同的辩护原理与规制路径,但均会导致多重不利后果。长远而言,应采取多项措施,从源头上避免退庭现象的出现。In the judicial practice, there are three models of defense lawyer s withdrawal from court, i.e. permission to withdraw from court in the name of refusing to defend, order to withdraw in the name of maintaining court order, and unauthorized withdrawal from court to protest against the injustice of court. For the first model, one needs to respect the will of the defendant and strictly restrict the defense lawyer s refusal to defend. For the second model, the key is to clarify the basis for ordering to leave the court and follow the principle of the power of litigation command, and meanwhile to grant the lawyer the right to object. For the unauthorized withdrawal, the relationship between unauthorized withdrawal and refusal to defend should be distinguished, and the lawyer should not be disqualified without deep consideration. Different models of withdrawal reflect different defense principles and regulation paths, but all of them will lead to the obstruction of litigation process and negative results. In the long run, a number of measures should be taken to avoid the phenomenon of withdrawal from court.

关 键 词：退庭 退出辩护 辩审冲突 诉讼指挥权 

分 类 号：D925[政治法律—诉讼法学]