认罪认罚案件中的证据开示制度  

The Evidence Disclosure System in the Pleading Guilty and Accepting Punishment with Leniency Case

作　　者：鲍文强[1] Bao Wenqiang(the Law School of Jilin University)

机构地区：[1]吉林大学法学院

出　　处：《国家检察官学院学报》2020年第6期115-127,共13页Journal of National Prosecutors College

基　　金：国家社科基金重大项目“中国特色刑事证据理论体系研究”(18ZD139)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：现有"强阅卷弱开示"证据信息交换机制下,由于阅卷权利、动力与能力的多重不足,认罪认罚案件中被追诉方的证据知悉权难以得到切实保障,严重影响其认罪认罚的自愿性,促生在该类案件中探索证据开示制度的必要。认罪认罚案件中的证据开示由检察机关主导,其承担在审查起诉阶段向被追诉方开示证据的职责。证据开示有利于控辩双方对定罪量刑结果形成准确预判,强化被追诉人认罪认罚自愿性的同时,为实质化控辩协商提供依据。法院应将证据开示作为审查认罪认罚自愿性的重要内容,以防范冤错案件的产生,促进认罪认罚从宽制度价值的实现。Under the existing evidence information exchange mechanism of" strong file-reviewing system and weak disclosure system", due to the multiple deficiencies of file-reviewing rights, motivation and ability, the defendant’s right to know evidence in pleading guilty and accepting punishments with leniency(PGAPL) cases can’t be effectively guaranteed, which seriously affects the voluntary confession and promotes the necessity of exploring the evidence disclosure system in such cases. The evidence disclosure in PGAPL cases is led by procuratorate organs, which assume the responsibility of revealing evidence to the prosecuted party in the stage of examination and prosecution. The disclosure of evidence is beneficial for both prosecution and defense to form an accurate prediction of conviction and sentencing results, which not only strengthens the accused’s voluntary confession, but also provides a basis for substantive negotiation between prosecution and defense. The court should take the disclosure of evidence as an important content to examine the voluntariness of pleading guilty, so as to prevent the occurrence of wrongful cases and promote the realization of the system value.

关 键 词：认罪认罚 证据开示 检察主导 知悉权 认罪自愿性 

分 类 号：D915.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]